Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CORNWALL COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

HAMPSHIRE BILL [Lords]

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

The Grove Maternity Hospital, Barton-on-Sea

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the future of the Grove maternity hospital Barton-on-Sea.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): In March 1981, after considering the case put forward for the closure of the Grove maternity hospital, my predecessor decided that the hospital should remain open and be given the opportunity to develop. The Southampton and South-West Hampshire health authority is now carrying out a review of the situation on the Grove's future, but no conclusion has yet been reached.

Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his reply and apologise for continuing to press the case for the Grove hospital. However, is he satisfied that the health authority has done what it was told to do by his predecessor with regard to investment and use of facilities? With regard to the future of the Grove, can he confirm that there is no question that he will become involved until those obligations have been clearly carried out?

Mr. Clarke: I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest in this subject, and he has brought a deputation to see me about the matter. At the moment the health authority is reviewing the future and considering the case, but has reached no conclusions. I will not be involved unless for some reason the authority again decides to propose closure. Before anything was put to me, I should need to be satisfied that the spirit of my predecessor's original decision had been complied with in every way.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: What would be the effect on the maternity unit at the Southampton general hospital of keeping the Grove open?

Mr. Clarke: Those are matters that should be left to the health authority. I rely on its judgment in looking at maternity services in the area as a whole, which is what it is doing now. I hope that it will be able to draw up a clear future programme for maternity services that will meet all the queries of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) and the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell).

Kidney Complaints (West Midlands)

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what representations he has received about the lack of treatment for sufferers of kidney complaints in the west midlands; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I have received a total of 19 representations, of which 11 have been from hon. Members.

Mr. Roberts: Is it not deplorable that purely because of the lack of resources many people in the west midlands and elsewhere will die from kidney disease this year, although there are tried and tested methods of treatment? Will the Minister consider the suggestion that I have made on a number of occasions, that a computer bank system for kidney donors would greatly increase the efficiency of the system?

Mr. Clarke: I accept that one reason for the deficiencies is the unfortunate shortage of donor kidneys. A television programme two years ago did a great deal of damage by reducing the public and medical response to the demand for kidneys. We examine all possible ways to increase supplies of donors. We recently put a new kidney donor card into all provisional driving licences, and we are looking at other ways.
I replied yesterday on the hon. Member's particular point. We look at every suggestion with interest, but there are practical problems with computer donor banks that have to be resolved to make sure that they provide the best value for money in tackling the problem.

Mr. Carter-Jones: Has the Minister considered the possibility of contracting-in for donors of live organs, by computer?

Mr. Clarke: This is a highly controversial and difficult problem, with people holding a wide variety of views about the position of relatives of donors, if a tragic death occurs. We are looking at several propositions and we are actively encouraging as many people as possible to carry donor cards, as this greatly facilitates the taking of kidneys after a tragedy. It has also been suggested that we introduce kidney donor co-ordinators to assist doctors in providing the necessary organs. All the ideas are looked at, but the hon. Member's proposal is controversial.

One-parent Benefit

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what percentage of those entitled to receive one-parent benefit are receiving it.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): Our latest estimate is that one-parent benefit is being paid to about 70 per cent. of those who stand to gain by claiming the benefit.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that, while the figure represents an improvement over the position last year, it is still rather disappointing? Does he propose to take any further steps to try to raise the figure?

Mr. Newton: I would not wholly agree that the figure is as disappointing as my hon. Friend implies. It represents an increase from only about 60 per cent. when the Government took office. That is a substantial achievement. We are considering further steps to try to increase take-up still further.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I welcome the improvement. Has the Department received any information from the 1981 census that helps to establish that there are more single parents and therefore a genuine need for a continuing review of the uptake?

Mr. Newton: It is interesting that preliminary findings for 1981 from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys show that the number of one-parent families may be slightly lower than that on which we based our take-up estimate. In that case the take-up estimate would rise, but I cannot be absolutely certain at the moment.

Mr. Alton: Given the relatively low level of benefit available to single parents, will the hon. Gentleman make representations to his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for tax concessions to be made available to single parents who have to hire child minders?

Mr. Newton: This matter has been discussed in the House on a number of occasions. I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor will register the fact that the point has been raised again.

Mr. John: The Minister says that he is not disappointed because take-up has increased by 10 per cent. Does he realise that £25 million remains unclaimed by people among whom there are a higher proportion of those on the poverty line? Is he not convinced that further efforts to increase the take-up are desirable?

Mr. Newton: I have explained that we are considering a further effort. I should like to see the £25 million taken up. However, I do not wish the House to under-estimate the achievement in getting the figure up from 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. This is recognised, I am happy to say, by the National Council for One Parent Families.

Greenfield Report (Prescribing)

Mr. Mike Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now publish the Greenfield report on effective prescribing.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): Yes, Sir, shortly.

Mr. Thomas: Is the Secretary of State aware that what is required now is action? Is he not aware that even the pharmaceutical industry concedes that at least £50 million would be saved by implementing this report, which was produced for him last February? Is he aware that it would also help to stop the soap powder style promotion of drugs,

which all hon. Members saw documented so well on the "Panorama" programme last night? Will the right hon. Gentleman, having published the report, act upon it to make these savings rather than seek to increase the prescription charge by lop, which would not be necessary if he made this change?

Mr. Fowler: Not all hon. Members have the leisure of the hon. Gentleman to watch television. His supplementary question would have been more appropriate if the Government were not publishing the report. That is what he asks and that is what I am doing. I would therefore have expected him to welcome it.

Mr. Pavitt: Does the Secretary of State realise that every Minister since 1950 has urged the use of the British National Formulary or the British Pharmacopoeia in general prescribing? Will he not bring forward legislation to allow clinical freedom for doctors to refuse substitutes but to ignore the brand name percentage that applies at present?

Mr. Fowler: The first stage is to publish the report. The committee specifically did not examine the contribution that the pharmaceutical industry makes either to the discovery and development of new medicines or to the economy generally. I shall want to hold consultations before considering further action.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is it not clear that the majority of the thousands of drugs used every year in this country are me-too drugs, that they are not the result of original research and development? Will the right hon. Gentleman, when he publishes the report, consult not only the pharmaceutical companies but the medical profession, which knows of the contribution that could be made to the National Health Service?

Mr. Fowler: We shall consult the medical profession as well as the pharmaceutical industry. I hope that the hon. Lady will agree with me that it is important to consult the pharmaceutical industry, which is responsible for net exports worth about £570 million. The industry also employs 70,000 people. That is important. I accept what the hon. Lady says about the medical profession being consulted.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Secretary of State ask, at the same time, why there is such a disparity between the prices of the same drugs in this country and on the Continent?

Mr. Fowler: As the hon. Lady must know, we have a pharmaceutical price regulation scheme which was accepted by the previous Government, as was the promotional cost scheme. We are prepared to look at these matters.

Community Nurses (Cars)

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he intends to provide cars for community nurses who need them to visit their patients, as recommended in the Acheson report on primary care.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): This is one of a number of recommendations in the Acheson report about the living and working conditions of community nurses. There is already provision in a national agreement of the general Whitley council for the allocation of Crown cars


to staff who need them for their work. Only the health authority locally is in a position to assess the need for cars to be allocated and how effective this would be in aiding the recruitment and retention of nursing staff. The alternative is the payment of mileage allowances to staff using their own cars.

Mr. Watkins: Is the Minister aware that it is precisely the difficulties of that system that are highlighted in the Acheson report? Is he aware that the report shows that London community nurses are at a disadvantage over transport compared with nurses in what are characteristically described in the report as country areas? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there should be a national levelling-up of provision, primarily in the interests of patients?

Mr. Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman must realise that this is part of the series of recommendations in the Acheson report. We are still considering the action that is necessary. We announced some time ago an additional sum of money for particular purposes. The hon. Gentleman must also realise that there is virtually no pressure from staff for the provision of Crown cars. Most staff prefer to use their own cars because of the contribution towards standing costs within the mileage allowances.

Mr. Terry Davis: As the Minister has referred to the feelings of staff, does he appreciate that there is a widespread sense of injustice over the need for community nurses or health visitors to provide their own cars to do their job? If he is not willing to provide money for community nurses and health visitors to have cars provided by their employers, will he talk to his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Treasury about the injustice of taxing the mileage allowances?

Mr. Finsberg: I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Ealing-Hammersmith Hounslow Family Practitioner Committee

Mr. Leighton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, pursuant to the answer of the Minister of State, Official Report, 30 November, c. 135, whether an official of his Department telephoned the administrator of Ealing-Hammersmith Houslow family practitioner committee during the past six months and inquired about the political affiliations of some members of the family practitioner committee.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I now find that such inquiries were in fact made in connection with letters which my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) wished to send to members of this and other committees. The inquiries concerned only those committee members who are also members of local authorities. I have investigated the matter and I can assure the hon. Member that there was no motive for the inquiry other than to assist my hon. Friend in adopting a personal approach in his letters to the members concerned.

Mr. Leighton: That seems to be a denial of what was stated previously. It seems that there may be some chance of the Minister coming clean to the House this afternoon. Will he explain what possible justification exists for making inquiries about the political affiliations of members of these committees? Is it not a disgrace?

Mr. Clarke: My previous reply said that I was not aware of these approaches and that I had not authorised any. That remains the case. It is also true of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead. My hon. Friend wished to write to members of five FPCs about a problem with which he is dealing over offices at Wembley. An official decided that it would be helpful in writing personal letters if he knew the political affiliations of the elected local councillors of the FPCs.

Mr. John Evans: Why?

Mr. Clarke: Rather than look up the political affiliations of these councillors, which is publicly available in a book, the official decided to ring up the office and inquire about the political affiliations. Once Ministers discovered that, the inquiries were, of course, ended.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Can we all know what their political affiliations were? As the Minister has the information, will he publish it in the Official Report?

Mr. Clarke: The Greater London council already fulfils that service for us. One can buy a document which gives London election results together with the political affiliations of every councillor, including those who serve on FPCs. Our official decided to engage in the cost of a telephone call rather than pay £7 to the Greater London council. Either method is open to the hon. Gentleman and anyone else.

Mrs. Dunwoody: What was the difference in the text of the letters that made it necessary for the official to know which letter to send to which councillor?

Mr. Clarke: At that stage my hon. friend had not sent any of the letters. The intention was that he could vary his manner of address according to their party, if he so wished. Each Minister and each Member of Parliament follows his own practice. In correspondence I refer to more of my hon. Friends as "Yours ever" than I do to my opponents. It is entirely up to my hon. Friend what form of address he adopts.

Death Grant

Mr. Strang: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will now make a statement of the future of the death grant.

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Rossi): We have not yet completed our consideration of the future of the death grant following public response to the consultative document. I shall make a statement as soon as this is complete.

Mr. Strang: Is it not already clear that all the proposals in the Government's consultative document are unacceptable to pensioners' organisations? Will the Government press ahead and provide a decent increase in the death grant so that old people need no longer live in fear of being unable to afford a decent burial?

Mr. Rossi: It is also perfectly clear that the resources do not exist to pay a substantially increased death grant to rich and poor alike. If I had that kind of money available, I should use it for other priorities.

Mr. Durant: Will my hon. Friend look at the problem of funeral expenses facing widows whose husbands are on


long-term sickness benefit for a considerable time and then die? It causes great difficulty and hardship, and the policy in this regard seems to be confused.

Mr. Rossi: It had been our intention, as a result of the consultative document, to redirect resources to the area of greatest need. Unfortunately, we did not receive sufficient public support for that approach. Therefore, we have to reconsider the matter.

Mr. Foster: Does the Minister recall saying on 31 March that he looked forward to
a quick and favourable response to … the consultative document".—[Official Report, 30 March 1982; Vol. 21, c. 175.]
Was not the response predominantly unfavourable? Does not the fact that we have not yet had any proposals suggest that the Government have decided to drop the means-testing of the death grant this side of the general election?

Mr. Rossi: Fifty five per cent. of those who replied were not in favour of any of the proposals in the consultative document. All the same, a number of people replied in favour of one or other of the options. It is regrettable that we do not have public support to put resources where they are really needed and, because we do not have that support, we are having to consider the matter de novo.

Mr. McCrindle: Is not my hon. Friend confusing public support with the expression of opinion from a sizeable number of people who could have been expected in the first place to take the line that they did? Has not the time come for the Government to grasp the nettle and pay a sizeably increased death grant to those who need it? Is it not clear that this is a case where selective use of the public social services is highly desirable?

Mr. Rossi: It can equally be said that because only 630 responses were received to the consultative document there is not a great deal of public interest in the matter anyway. That is perfectly arguable, when one considers the millions of people who are affected by this matter. Of course the Government have to come to a conclusion, and I hope that it will be possible to make an announcement in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. John: How many of the 630 responses were from representative bodies that represent many more than one individual response?

Mr. Rossi: Some were from representative bodies on both sides. For example, the ex-service organisations very much supported the proposals. I do not want to give the hon. Gentleman an accurate figure, but I shall certainly give it to him in writing, if that is what he wishes.

Tobacco Advertising

Mr. Maxton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied that the code of practice for tobacco advertising makes adequate provision for advertisements contained in magazines given away free.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Maxton: Is the Minister aware that High Life magazine, the in-flight magazine of British Airways, carries cigarette advertising with no Government health warning? Even if the company can dodge the Government code of practice, because of certain terms in the code, does it not have a moral responsibility, as one of our big

national organisations, to ensure that that advertising carries health warnings? Will the Minister make sure that health warnings are included in future?

Mr. Finsberg: The answer to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question is "No". The present arrangements for the Advertising Standards Authority and the new voluntary agreement specifically are not meant for magazines such as the one that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Such publications are designed basically for passengers who are not in this country. The advertisements are aimed basically at duty-free sales. Exactly like our predecessors, we do not intend to move on this matter.

Mr. Farr: Does my hon. Friend agree that the limit of bullying the tobacco industry had just about been reached, and that if Government pressure continues to be applied to the tobacco industry there is a real risk of the industry reaching virtual extinction, with the loss of many thousands of jobs at home and abroad?

Mr. Finsberg: In replying to my hon. Friend, I must make clear the appalling dangers that people run if they smoke. I think that that is accepted on all sides. The voluntary agreement that we were able to negotiate on this occasion is a substantial improvement on those that went before, and, in my opinion, the co-operation that we receive from the industry shows that it understands its responsibilities very well.

Mr. Home Robertson: Has the Minister seen the grim figures published by ASH last week, which show that because of smoking 8,213 Scots will die and that a further 15,774 Scots will be admitted to hospital during the current year? In view of those grim figures, does the Minister accept that the time has come to do something more effective to discourage this expensive form of suicide?

Mr. Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman should not assume that a ban on advertising will reduce the amount of smoking. Finland, which banned smoking advertising in 1977, now finds that cigarette consumption is rising, whereas here it is declining.

Mr. Adley: Will my hon. Friend explain one thing? I accept that many things that human beings do to themselves are not very good for them, but why is it necessary to take these steps for cigarettes, when apparently it is not necessary for drinking alcohol or sniffing glue?

Mr. Finsberg: The difference is that there is a danger in smoking cigarettes, however few one smokes. There is no danger in sensible drinking.

National Health Service (Pay)

Mr. Hoyle: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent discussions he has had concerning the creation of a pay review body for the National Health Service; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent discussions he has had with the Health Service unions concerning the pay dispute; and if he will make a statement.

Sir William van Straubenezee: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he proposes any early meeting with the health services committee of the Trades Union Congress to discuss health workers' pay.

Mr. Fowler: Following the ballot of the Royal College of Nursing and the decision by the TUC health services committee to resume negotiations on the basis of the two-year settlement offered by the Government, agreements covering the period to 31 March 1984 have now been concluded in most of the NHS Whitley councils.
Settlements for the remaining staff groups are expected to be agreed in the very near future. Normal working has now been resumed throughout the Health Service. Consultations will begin shortly on the establishment of the new review body for nurses, midwives and professions allied to medicine. I hope that discussions with representatives of other Health Service staff will begin shortly to consider new arrangements for determining their pay in the longer term.

Mr. Hoyle: When will the Secretary of State announce the setting up of a body to cover staff other than the nurses of whom he spoke and those associated with them? Will that body contain a structure that will enable the management and trade unions to establish acceptable pay and conditions for those very deserving staff?

Mr. Fowler: I do not envisage a body such as the review body to be set up for the other staff groups. However, I envisage the start of discussions with the Health Service unions as soon as possible in an effort to get new and better arrangements for the longer term.

Mr. Powell: Is the Secretary of State aware that 3 million working days were lost, compared with the 600,000 that were lost during the winter of discontent, as a direct result of his inability to settle the dispute sooner? What responsibility does he accept for the increased waiting lists?

Mr. Fowler: I entirely reject what the hon. Gentleman says. We have achieved a fair settlement and not the surrender over which the previous Government presided. My regret is that industrial action continued for so long when a settlement was available much earlier. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to ascribe responsibility, I suggest that he considers the responsibility of the Labour Opposition, who at no stage condemned industrial action in the Health Service.

Mr. Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend be careful to ensure that the new body does not turn into another Clegg commission? In comparing salaries, will he ensure that it is remembered that in the public service there is very great security compared with that in the private sector, where there are risks and strains and often redundancies?

Mr. Fowler: Yes, but I think that my hon. Friend will agree that the nurses' review body recognises the special position of nurses and other professional groups which do not take industrial action. It is right to recognise their position and that is what the review body is intended to do.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The review body may not be independent enough, because it will take account, presumably, of the views of Conservative Ministers in fixing wage rates. Are we to learn that there will be a split between SENs and SRNs? Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that he should even offer other parts of the profession terms inferior to those offered by a review body?

Mr. Fowler: It has been made clear to the review body that we are consulting on how many and on what groups

will be contained within its considerations. It has been clear from the beginning that there will be no question of the review body covering, for example, ancillary workers, administrative workers and clerical workers. We have made our position clear.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Why?

Mr. Fowler: The giving of evidence to the review body will be like giving evidence to the doctors and dentists review body. The Government will give evidence to the review body and the review body will consider it.

Mrs. Dunwoody: But why is the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mrs. Jill Knight.

Mrs. Knight: Has my right hon. Friend any information about the other strike—in social security offices, which recently terminated in Birmingham and in the Oxford area?

Mr. Fowler: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend's supplementary question stems from the main question. However, she will be aware that the strike to which she has referred has come to an end, which I welcome.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Why has the right hon. Gentleman arbitrarily excluded entire sections of the NHS? That is not sensible and it can lead only to even more aggravation.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Lady is being ridiculous. She has never advocated a review body for the whole of the Health Service. I have made it clear from the beginning that the review body recognises the special position of nurses, who do not take industrial action and who have never—certainly not under the previous Government—had any satisfactory system of determining pay. There is a background in the general labour market against which comparisons can be made with ancillary and administration staff and others. I think that the hon. Lady has a dud point.

Supplementary Benefit (Application Form)

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations he has received regarding the size and complexity of the new form for application for social security benefit.

Mr. Newton: About a dozen representations from local authorities, bodies providing advice services or representing workers, and individuals, were made in the six weeks prior to the form's introduction on 6 December 1982. The hon. Gentleman has, of course, followed up the representations that he made at that time.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister not realise that far more representations are coming to individual Members of Parliament than the number to which he has referred? Is this not the result of the form-filling that is required? I think that the form contains 104 questions. This is a deterrent, because many of those who are called upon to answer the questions set out in the form are already depressed by the position in which they find themselves. Does the Minister accept that this position, and the new form, are the result of the Government's economic policies, which are driving hundreds of thousands into over-crowded DHSS offices? Due to the overcrowding,


the staff have to give claimants a form to complete so that they will leave the offices instead of remaining in them. Is this not the fact?

Mr. Newton: No. Our purpose in introducing the form was to try to improve rather than damage the administration of the social security system, not least to ensure that the unemployed who claim supplementary benefit do have to go to two offices instead of one. The form helps also in rural areas, where there were particular difficulties. The number of questions is related to the information that is required—whether on a form or by interview—to assess a claim for supplementary benefit.

Mr. Rooker: Will the Minister say whether, at this early date, any special problems have arisen from one of the very last questions on the form, which asks the recipient whether he or she is a registered blind person? Is that the sort of question that should be left until the end of such a form, or the sort of question that should be on the form in the first place?

Mr. Newton: The form makes it clear that anyone who experiences difficulties, including blind persons and those who have language problems, will find help available from the staff at the offices. I am not aware that any problems have shown up in the monitoring exercise. If they do, we shall change the form.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: I really want to ask a supplementary question to the next question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I shall try to remember that.

Retirement Age

Mr. Skinner: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will take steps to introduce retirement for men at the age of 60 years; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Rossi: In its report on the age of retirement the Social Services Committee has put forward proposals for phased transition over 10 years towards a scheme of flexible retirement between age 60 and 65 for both men and women. I am currently examining these proposals and the Government response will be published shortly.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that if the Government have any serious intention of reducing the massive unemployment totals they will do so not only by reflating the economy, which is important, but by progressing towards a shorter working week and a shorter working life? If the Government can find £2 billion to spend on the Falklands for 1,500 people—some say £3 billion—and if they can spend £10 billion on Trident, why cannot they spend a few billion pounds to achieve retirement at 60 for men, so that many of the youngsters who want a job will be given one?

Mr. Rossi: A change in the state pension age must be regarded as a long-term change for which a great deal of preparation must be made. It is not one that can be fixed only in accordance with short-term economic considerations. The Government have extended the job release scheme because they consider it to be a more cost-effective way of reducing unemployment. We have also ensured

that the long-term rate of supplementary benefit is now available to men of over 60 who were on low incomes and who have been unemployed for a year or more.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend accept that I thoroughly agree with his long-term aim of flexible retirement for both men and women? Will he agree also that it is crucial that we keep in step with our colleagues in the other European countries so that we are not caught at a competitive disadvantage?

Mr. Cryer: Retire.

Mr. Rossi: Clearly that is a factor that will have to be taken into account. However, my hon. Friend will realise that I cannot anticipate the formal response that the Government will make to the Committee in due course.

General Practitioner Statistics (London)

Mr. Dubs: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proportion of people living in London are not registered with a general practitioner.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: This information is not routinely available. A recent survey by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys suggests that 5 per cent. of people living in inner London are not registered with a general medical practitioner under the National Health Service.

Mr. Dubs: Is it not the case that in London a larger proportion of people are not registered with a doctor than in other parts of the country? Is this not due to the reasons that are given in the Acheson report, which suggest that in London doctors are older, that premises are less satisfactory and that there are more single practices? Does the Minister think that some action should be taken to implement this section of the Acheson report?

Mr. Finsberg: I remind the hon. Gentleman that Professor Acheson's study group took the view that a non-registration rate of 5 per cent. or less could be regarded as insignificant. The survey that I have quoted shows that no special remedial action is needed.

Mr. George Cunningham: In view of the disproportionate number of elderly doctors in the inner city areas and the number of doctors who want semi-retirement by having shorter lists, will the Minister restore the encouragements previously in existence for setting up new health centres?

Mr. Finsberg: I am prepared to consider that matter, but the hon. Gentleman ought to know that of the 35 medical practice areas in inner London, 34 are classified as being well or adequately doctored, so the problem is, at worst, patchy.

Treatment Methods and Centres of Excellence

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consideration is given to the central funding of new methods of treatment and of regional centres of excellence.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: New methods of treatment are normally funded by individual health authorities from the funds made available each year to them. Where a service involves substantial expenditure and is of national interest, arrangements may exceptionally be made for central funding.

Mr. Miller: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his reply. May I ask about the new method of kidney treatment that is being developed in Birmingham, which has fallen on the charge of the finances of the district health authority, which is unable to sustain it, and, similarly, about the centre for neurosurgery at Smethwick, which has suffered with regard to grants for the same reason, compared with Sheffield, for example?

Mr. Clarke: The need for renal treatment is widespread and must be handled on a regional basis. The West Midlands regional health authority is giving high priority to its renal services. It has been financing a new transplant unit at Stoke and new dialysis services at Coventry, for example. It has had to put a cash limit on a service in Birmingham, but overall the region is spending more money than before on renal services and is treating more patients. It intends to continue to do so. The future of the new unit at Sandwell will be looked at by the region in the first place, which is now consulting on its regional services. If it comes to us with a proposition, we shall look at it with interest.

Mr. Ashley: Is it not disgraceful that patients are denied the benefits of the new treatment developed at the centres of excellence simply because central funding is not available and those centres cannot afford the cost themselves? Can the Minister help?

Mr. Clarke: As I have just explained, central and regional funding for those services has been expanded rapidly. Some £2 million a year more is being spent in the west midlands on renal services than was the case three or four years ago. There has been restraint on one centre providing one form of treatment in Birmingham, which was outstripping its budget by far, but the general picture in the region is that more money is being spent on services and more patients are being treated. I am assured by the region that it is setting itself higher targets.

Mr. Eastham: While the Minister is considering the funding of those centres of excellence, may I draw to his attention the fact that in Manchester we have numerous hospitals of excellence, such as Christie's, and those dealing with plastic and neurosurgery? Is he aware that a burden is being placed on the social workers of the city and that while 93 per cent. of patients attending Christie's cancer hospital are from outside Manchester, Manchester ratepayers have paid £1½ million to support the social workers?

Mr. Clarke: When it comes to funding the hospital service, which is the responsibility of the Government, we compensate health authorities for the cost of treating patients who come from outside their district and immediate locality. With regard to funds for the service as a whole, the latest public spending round produced an extra £80 million on top of previously published plans for the Health Service, which will allow for real growth in services next year.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will shortly make an announcement about the distribution of that extra money to each and every health authority.

Overseas Visitors (Hospital Treatment)

Mr. Tilley: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what has been the cost of administering charges for hospital treatment of overseas visitors since 1 October.

Mr. Fowler: This information is not available.

Mr. Tilley: Is the Minister aware that first impressions suggest that the Opposition's predictions are proving correct and the new system is wasting the efforts of hospital staff and administrators, adding to the administrative costs, confusing and inconveniencing patients and adding hardly anything in terms of increased revenue? How soon will the Minister conduct a review to see whether that is correct? If that is correct, will he give a pledge here and now that he will withdraw the new system?

Mr. Fowler: The scheme has been operating for only three months. It would be silly to come to firm conclusions now. There is absolutely no evidence of extra staff being taken on. I have no reason to doubt the original findings of the working party, which concluded, before the setting up of the scheme, that the administrative costs would be minimal.

Mr. Terry Davis: Is it not both common sense and good business practice to ensure that the cost of administering charges is less than the revenue collected? What is the Minister afraid of?

Mr. Fowler: The Minister is not afraid of anything. If the hon. Gentleman wants to swap common sense, the general principle that we are applying is this. When we go to the United States or Japan, we have to pay charges and we have to insure. The Government say that there is no reason why visitors who come from the United States to this country should not also have to pay charges.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ql. Mr. Alton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 18 January.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I shall be attending a diamond jubilee reception for the National Association of Pension Funds.

Mr. Alton: Is the Prime Minister aware that there is evidence that the atomic tests that took place in Maralinga in the south Pacific in the 1950s led to the deaths of some of our service men from cancer? Does she not agree that simply making available service men's records is insufficient and that what is required is a public inquiry and an assurance that compensation will be given to the victims and their relatives?

The Prime Minister: The Ministry of Defence has announced that it will conduct a health study of all personnel who were serving in connection with those tests in Australia and the south Pacific. That is a survey of about 15,000 personnel to see what the effects have been. That is the best way to go about this problem.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: On wider nuclear questions, will the Prime Minister recognise that many people in this country do not believe that unilateralism would provide either for the proper defence of this country or be conducive to the peace of the world, but none the less they want serious disarmament talks? Will she recognise that her rigid


adherence to the zero option is not sufficient? It may be the best option, but it is not the only option. If the opening bid is to be the closing bid, there can be no negotiations. Will the Prime Minister therefore move from the rigid position that she has adopted?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that unilateralism constitutes one-sided weakness. That would be Britain's weakness. That would be totally unacceptable to most of us in the House. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the zero option would be absolutely the best. In the absence of the zero option, we must have balanced numbers. The place to get balanced numbers is at the negotiating table at Geneva.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has been too much talk in the past week or two about gloom and doom for our economy by the Opposition parties and people outside who ought to know better? Will she take it from me that after the night is the dawn and that provided the Treasury continues with its flexible and pragmatic policies 1983 will be a good year for the Government and the country?

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend and knight for his gracious and sage advice and I congratulate him.

Mr. Foot: Returning to the right hon. Lady's replies to more serious questions a little earlier, may I ask when the Government will be able to give a considered reply to the proposals made by Mr. Andropov before Christmas, to which the right hon. Lady gave her answer before reading what they were? Taking into account the later proposals from the meeting in Prague, when will the British Government make a response, especially as it seems that some months ago in Geneva there was the possibility of an agreement? Have the Government any view about that, as we believe that it would have been far better to back the proposals made by Mr. Rostow at that time?

The Prime Minister: The nature of the dual track agreement in December 1979, honoured by all NATO countries, was that cruise missiles would be deployed unless the SS20s were taken down. After that came the zero option proposal, which is undoubtedly the best. If the SS20s are not taken right down, cruise will start to be deployed. The numbers to be deployed will depend upon achieving a balanced agreement with the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries. If the SS20s are not taken down, we must start to deploy cruise missiles. Mr. Helmut Schmidt in Germany was extremely firm about that. Indeed, I believe that it was partly his firmness that brought the Russians to the negotiating table.

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Lady has not attempted to answer the question. What is her view about the Rostow proposals, which did not involve continued insistence on the zero option, however desirable? Furthermore, does she recall that in our debates before Christmas there was considerable discussion of the dual control of the new missiles which, in certain circumstances, the Government propose to establish in this country? It is now claimed that the British Government have refused to insist on dual control. Do they intend to continue with that view or shall we insist that British control be established over these weapons?

The Prime Minister: The principle is a balance in order to deter. The best balance between the Soviet Union and NATO is zero. In the absence of that, one must have a balance between the SS20s and the cruise and Pershing missiles, which are in the same range of intermediate nuclear weapons. That is the proposition before us. One hopes to achieve the zero option, but in the absence of that we must achieve balanced numbers. In calculating the balance, one must not go in for bogus counting. Some of the propositions that have been put up, and repeated, involved bogus counting. We must not allow the wool to be pulled over our eyes in that respect.
The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the dual key. The use of United States bases in the United Kingdom in an emergency would be a matter for joint decision by Her Majesty's Government and the United States' Government in the light of circumstances prevailing at the time. That is the same rule as existed under the Labour Government and as has existed for the past 30 years. I am aware that concern has been expressed about the effectiveness of the arrangements and I have satisfied myself that they are effective.

Mr. Viggers: Has my right hon. Friend had time during her busy day to note reports of demonstrations by certain women within the parliamentary buildings yesterday? Does she agree that such extra-parliamentary activity, as it has been called, is made more likely by the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition, not so much by his giving succor and encouragement to the women demonstrating at Greenham Common, as by his support and endorsement of that advocate of extra-parliamentary opposition, Mr. Peter Tatchell? Does my right hon. Friend agree that extra-parliamentary opposition too often means anti-parliamentary opposition and should accordingly be condemned?

The Prime Minister: One is obviously against anti-parliamentary opposition of any kind, from wheresoever it may come, as all of us here believe in fundamentally democratic systems. Part of those democratic systems is, of course, the ability to demonstrate and to express one's views outside the House. I look forward to the time when demonstrations about nuclear weapons can take place as easily in Moscow as here.

Mr. Beith: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 18 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Beith: As it was the right hon. Lady's own private Member's Bill, which she moved in her maiden speech in 1960, that safeguarded the rights of the press to be admitted to meetings of public bodies, how can she support the Secretary of State for the Environment, who, later today, will ask us to repeal that legislation in so far as it applies to the water authorities that he is setting up, allowing those bodies, appointed entirely by the Secretary of State and his colleagues, to meet in the absence of any public scrutiny over their spending of our money?

The Prime Minister: It is because the nature of the authority is being changed entirely, from its previous form to an executive body.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the two excellent statements from BL this week, showing a 99½5 per cent. strike-free record for the Rover


company and a similar record for Jaguar, with sales to America increased by 120 per cent.? Does she agree that co-operation between management and workers at BL has contributed most to that record and will help British industry more than anything else that we can imagine?

The Prime Minister: I agree wholeheartedly with what my hon Friend has said. BL has done very well recently in its export record, and the record of Jaguar within the group is outstanding, but it has a long way to go before it breaks even, let alone generates sufficient capital to produce the next generation of cars. In the meantime, BL is doing much better. I join my hon Friend in praising the work that has been done and attribute it to the same cause as he does.

Dr. Summerskill: When the Prime Minister visits my constituency on Friday of this week will she explain to the people there why there are now nearly 7,000 unemployed in Halifax, with more redundancies being announced nearly every day, why hospital wards are due to close, why there have been massive cuts in all the social services and why anyone should vote for her at the next general election?

The Prime Minister: On the first part of the question, despite what is now an excellent record in retail sales, a sufficiently large proportion of those sales is not coming from home production because British manufacturing industry is insufficiently competitive either in price or in design and must improve. The demand is there, but British industry is not taking a sufficient part of the home market.
On the second part of the question, as the hon. Lady knows, old-age pensions have more than kept pace with inflation and the pensioners received their Christmas bonus. [interruption.]The hon. Lady asked about the social services and I am telling her. In the Health Service, there are more doctors and nurses than there were under the Labour Government. An extra 5 per cent. in real terms is being spent on it, and so on.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 18 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Atkinson: Does the right Lady recall that during her trip last week she declared that she would defend to the full all Falklanders' rights, but that immediately she returned to this country she said that she would not support the British right to work? Is the price that she is now paying for the stability of the pound the total abandonment of the Britisn unemployed?

The Prime Minister: The two issues are not connected. The hon. Gentleman knows that.

Mr. Churchill: With regard to my right hon. Friend's reply to the Leader of the Opposition about the command and control of United States cruise missiles that are to be based in Britain, will she re-emphasise that not only have conditions not changed in the past 30 years but that it remains the case that the affirmative agreement of the British Prime Minister is required before any United States nuclear weapons that are based on these islands can be launched?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I have satisfied myself about the effectiveness of the arrangements for joint decision.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Will the Prime Minister find time today to advise the Secretary of State for unemployment, who will visit my constituency on Thursday, that welcome though the improvement in production by Jaguar cars is, it is still barely 50 per cent. of what it produced under a previous chief executive? Does she agree that the real problem in Coventry and the rest of the west midlands is that there is 20 per cent. male unemployment and that one-third of our manufacturing capacity has been lost? Will not the Prime Minister realise that some Government intervention is necessary to coordinate and increase Government purchasing, via British Leyland, with component and capital goods suppliers in the west midlands before the devastation goes any further?

The Prime Minister: If we recover a greater share of the car market, we shall be doing extremely well by the west midlands, but that must be done by the industry itself. When reviewing regional policy, the Government have an eye on what has happened in regions such as the west midlands.

Falkland Islands (Franks Report)

Mr. Speaker: Statement, The Prime Minister.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Just after midnight last night, I raised a point of order about Mr. Bernard Ingham and his proposed 11 am and 2.45 pm guidance to journalists. From the Opposition Front Bench last night, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Cocks), the Opposition Chief Whip, said that he thought that the issues were substantial and invited the Leader of the House to comment. Very fairly and properly, and acting in his capacity as Leader of the whole House, the right hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) said from the Dispatch Box that he agreed that the matter should be considered by you, Mr. Speaker, this morning. Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker announced then that he would report the matter to you, Mr. Speaker.
If the Franks committee had been set up by the House, there would have been a succession of breach of privilege cases, besides which the cases of the late Sir Gerald Nabarro on car tax, of the leak of the Civil List and of myself in relation to Porton Down would have paled into insignificance—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is reading."] Indeed, in 1967, for talking prematurely about the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology to Laurence Marks of The Observer, I was arraigned before the whole House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will submit a point of order to me on which I can rule.

Mr. Dalyell: What I said was trivial and obscure compared with the reports in The Observer on Sunday by Mr. Adam Raphael and the long report in The Scotsman which I sent to you, Sir, by the responsible diplomatic correspondent Alexander MacLeod, who reported in detail and authoritatively much of what Lord Franks said and his conclusions.
The point of order is this. Is there to be one law for Downing Street and another for Back Benchers? If Downing Street did not make the leak, who did? Lord Franks? A member of his committee? Was it Lord Carrington? Was it the Foreign Office? The House of Commons is entitled to a statement on prima facie breaches of the Official Secrets Act.
When the committee was set up, so great was the store that was set by the need for secrecy that it had to be Privy Councillors who were appointed to it. Rightly, Sir Patrick Nairn was appointed to the Privy Council precisely for that purpose.
In the absence of what some of us consider the civilised and sensible habit of an embargo for the Lobby so that they can study things in a relaxed and proper manner, what we have had is selective briefing and selected leaking by interested parties. Moreover—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must now submit a point of order to me. [HON. MEMBERS: "He has done it."] If he has done it, I am quite willing to give my ruling. He must now come to the point. The House is waiting to hear a statement.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it right for the House of Commons to face a situation where a Prime Minister can put her own

gloss on something? If Downing Street was not responsible, let us have an inquiry to discover who made the leak. The first thing in the public mind is—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can help the hon. Gentleman and the House in this matter. This is not a matter over which I have any authority to rule. It is not a report that has been commissioned by the House. It is a Government report. It is not for me to tell the Government how they may conduct their own affairs. Statement, the Prime Minister.

Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order on another matter, Mr. Speaker, which is your responsibility. Some hon. Members are privileged enough to have had a copy of the report for a long time. Others are scurrying out of the Chamber to get one now. Would it not be better for the statement to be made when all hon. Members, especially Back Benchers, for whom I know you have a special concern, Mr. Speaker, are on an equal footing when the statement is made? Would it not be sensible for this sitting to be suspended—

Hon. Members: No.

Other Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Foulkes: —to allow hon. Members to read the report or for the Prime Minister's statement to be postponed until hon. Members have read it?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about the report of the Falkland Islands review committee.
The House will remember that I announced the setting up of the review committee in July 1982, after consultation with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and with leading Privy Councillors in other parties. At that time I expressed the hope that the committee would be be able to complete its work within six months.
The committee has justified that hope. I received its report on 31 December 1982, and I am presenting it to Parliament as a Command Paper this afternoon. Copies are now available in the Vote Office. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too late."]
I should like to express the Government's gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Franks, and to his colleagues for the amount of time and effort which they have devoted to producing such a thorough and comprehensive report in so short a time.
The report makes it clear that the committee was provided with all the papers relevant to its terms of reference, including a comprehensive collection of reports from the intelligence agencies. The committee's report contains a number of references to intelligence matters which would not in other circumstances be divulged. These references are essential for a full understanding of the matters into which the committee was asked to enquire, and the Government have agreed that the public interest requires that on this occasion the normal rule against public reference to the intelligence organisation or to material derived from intelligence reports should be waived.
The Government have, however, agreed with Lord Franks amendments to certain of the references to


intelligence reports with a view to minimising potential damage to British intelligence interests. Lord Franks has authorised me to tell the House that he agrees that, first, all the references to intelligence reports included in the committee's report as submitted have been retained in the report as presented to Parliament, most of them without amendment; secondly, none of the amendments that have been made alters the sense, substance or emphasis of the reference to the intelligence report concerned, or removes anything of significance to the committee's account of the matters referred to it or to its findings and conclusions; thirdly, apart from those agreed amendments, no other deletions or amendments have been made to the committee's report as submitted.
The report is unanimous and is signed by all the members of the committee without qualification. It falls into four chapters. The first gives an account of the dispute from 1965—when the issue was first brought formally to international attention by a resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations—to May 1979.
The second chapter covers the period from May 1979 to 19 March 1982. The third deals with the fortnight from 19 March to 2 April 1982, which included the South Georgia incident and which led up to the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands. The fourth and final chapter deals with the way in which the Government discharged their responsibilities in the period leading up to the invasion. There are six annexes, the first of which deals with 10 specific assertions that have been made by some who have commented on the matters in question.
In the fourth chapter of the report—that is, the one that deals with the way Government discharged their responsibilities—the committee notes a number of points where, in its judgment, different decisions might have been taken, fuller consideration of alternative courses of action might have been advantageous, and the machinery of government could have been better used. That chapter defines and addresses itself to two crucial questions: first, could the Government have foreseen the invasion of 2 April 1982; seondly, could the Government have prevented the invasion?
The committee emphasises that its report should be read as a whole. At this stage, therefore, I shall do no more than quote the committee's conclusions on those two crucial questions. On the first question, whether the Government could have foreseen the invasion of 2 April, the committee's conclusion is:
In the light of this evidence, we are satisfied that the Government did not have warning of the decision to invade. The evidence of the timing of the decision taken by the Junta shows that the Government not only did not, but could not, have had earlier warning. The invasion of the Falkland Islands on 2 April could not have been foreseen.
I have quoted the whole of paragraph 266.
On the second question, whether the Government could have prevented the invasion, the committee's conclusion, contained in the final paragraph of the report, is:
Against this background we have pointed out in this Chapter where different decisions might have been taken, where fuller consideration of alternative courses of action might, in our opinion, have been advantageous, and where the machinery of Government could have been better used. But, if the British Government had acted differently in the ways we have indicated, it is impossible to judge what the impact on the Argentine Government or the implications for the course of events might have been. There is no reasonable basis for any suggestion—which would be purely hypothetical—that the invasion would have been prevented if the Government had acted in the ways indicated in our report. Taking account of these

considerations, and of all the evidence we have received, we conclude that we would not be justified in attaching any criticism or blame to the present Government"—

[Laughter.]

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

The Prime Minister: May I finish the conclusion of the Franks Committee? It was its conclusion and has nothing to do with the Government. It said:
we conclude that we would not be justified in attaching any criticism or blame to the present Government for the Argentine Junta's decision to commit its act of unprovoked aggression in the invasion of the Falkland Islands on 2 April 1982.
I have quoted in full the final paragraph of the Franks report.
Time will, of course, be found for an early debate, and that will be discussed through the usual channels. The Government will welcome an early opportunity of discussing the matters contained in the report more thoroughly than is possible this afternoon.

Mr. Michael Foot: My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised a question about leakages. Anyone who read some of the reports in the newspapers could have reached a prime facie opinion that there was some leakage. It is a serious question. Will the right hon. Lady investigate the matter and report to the House? That is the most satisfactory way to deal with the matter, and such a course has been taken on previous occasions.
I am sure that the right hon. Lady's proposal for a debate will be accepted. The Opposition naturally concur with her suggestion. I hope that the Government will agree that the debate—I trust it will take place next week—will be a two-day debate. We had lengthy debates on the subject last year and it would be unsatisfactory to have a debate that was principally occupied by Privy Councillors. Many of them have every right to speak, but there should be a full two-day debate. Will the right hon. Lady agree to that now?
Most of the right hon. Lady's statement concerned procedural questions, and I shall put one procedural question to her before moving on. When the committee was established in July, she properly gave an undertaking that if any Minister or civil servant felt that they had suffered unfair criticism in the report, they would have the chance to reappear before the committee to state their views and to have them taken further into account. Have any civil servants or Ministers availed themselves of that opportunity?
The right hon. Lady referred to the clear statement in paragraph 336 of the report about the Committee's conclusions. It is essential that the report is read as a whole. I am one of the few hon. Members who have had an opportunity to read it, and I am happy to confirm its judgment. There are references to the machinery of government and the failures that may have occurred. Indeed, the right hon. Lady referred to that. I wish to quote a paragraph from the report which illustrates why it is necessary to examine the whole report before passing judgment on its conclusions. It is necessary to draw the right conclusions to ensure that the same tragic errors are not committed in future. In the words of the Foreign Secretary who resigned, those errors led to a national humiliation. [Interruption.] It was pretty tragic for the people who were killed. We need to know whether


measures will be taken to ensure that such a tragic development does not occur again, perhaps in Belize, which is not such a different example.
For those reasons, I wish to put to the House another paragraph that illustrates the case most clearly. Paragraph 115 states:
When they were informed of the decision"—
that is, the decision to withdraw HMS "Endurance"—
the Falkland Islands Councils held a joint meeting on 26 June 1981, following which they sent a message to Lord Carrington in the following terms:
'The people of the Falkland Islands deplore in the strongest terms the decision to withdraw HMS Endurance from service. They express extreme concern that Britain appears to be abandoning its defence of British interests in the South Atlantic and Antarctic at a time when other powers are strengthening their position in these areas. They feel that such a withdrawal will further weaken British sovereignty in this area in the eyes not only of Islanders but of the world. They urge that all possible endeavours be made to secure a reversal of this decision'.
On the following page the report describes fully for the first time what happened to those "all possible endeavours". One would have thought that in the face of such an appeal "all possible endeavours" should have included a reference of this matter to the Cabinet or to the Overseas and Defence Committee of the Cabinet. There was a difference of opinion between the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am talking now about what happened to the Falkland Islands. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] I am coming to my question to the right hon. Lady. There was a difference of opinion between the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence about the withdrawal of HMS "Endurance". The Foreign Secretary, who resigned, persisted in his attempt to raise the matter.
Does the right hon. Lady agree that the proper place for the question to have been decided—the difference of opinion between the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence—was either in the Overseas and Defence Committee over which she presides or the Cabinet over which she is supposed to preside? Does she agree, having read the entire report, that it illustrates a collapse of effective Cabinet government in this country—[Interruption.] We had Cabinet government in this country that could not even discuss this appeal from the Falkland Islands. Will the right hon. Lady tell us now what changes she is making in the effective control of the Government to ensure that such a tragic event does not arise again?

The Prime Minister: On the first question raised by the right hon. Gentleman, which was raised before I made my statement, about the alleged briefing of the press, the remarks that were made rightly cause deep offence to a very distinguished civil servant who has served both Governments. [HON. MEMBERS: "Leaking."] The leaking was not from No. 10. As a civil servant has been named, and it is my duty and pleasure to defend him, may I say that there was never an arrangement for my press secretary to brief the press on the contents of the Franks report before its publication. To help the press to digest the report in the short time available to them after publication, my press secretary was prepared to give them a list of numbers of key paragraphs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—knowing full well that those paragraphs could have been tested against the report when published and that it could have

been seen whether he had been fair or not—[Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) suggesting that he would have been unfair?

Hon. Members: Yes.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: What I am suggesting to the right hon. Lady is that she talks about guidance for certain paragraphs, but she just said in response to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the report should be read in its entirety, not just selected paragraphs.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

The Prime Minister: So the hon. Gentleman is not accusing my press secretary. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for enabling me to make that point.
However, in view of what occurred in the House last night, about which I heard, I specifically instructed him not to brief the press either on the paragraphs or in any way. Therefore, he did not brief them on the paragraphs and had no intention at any time of briefing them on the contents, nor did he brief them on the contents. The only people outside the Government who have had the report in advance of publication are the Leader of the Opposition—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—former Prime Ministers—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] I shall come to the moment when. The report was also made available to the Ministers who resigned when the invasion took place. They were given the report at midday yesterday. The leaders of the other opposition parties, who were consulted on the establishment of the committee, and you, Mr. Speaker, received it this afternoon.
I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that the report should be read as a whole—

Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Lady quoted those two paragraphs.

The Prime Minister: —which is why I quoted only the conclusions, which one is entitled to quote because the Franks committee was set up to pronounce on precisely those matters. It would have been absurd to do otherwise.
The right hon. Gentleman pointed out the paragraphs about HMS "Endurance" and about the decision to withdraw it. If the report is to be read as a whole, he should also refer to paragraph 44, which states:
One consequence of the 1974 Defence Review, which resulted in a phased rundown of overseas commitments outside NATO was a decision to take HMS "Endurance" out of service.

Hon. Members: Read on.

The Prime Minister: I will indeed read on. I shall read the next sentence and the one after that if need be. There was a decision to take HMS "Endurance" out of service. It was not implemented, nor was our decision to take HMS Endurance out of service implemented. [Interruption.] The fact is that the invasion ocurred while HMS Endurance was on station.
The Leader of the Opposition should also direct attention to signals and developments in British policy that are discussed in paragraphs 278 to 281, which refer also to other signals given by governments of both parties—[Interruption.]

Mr. Ron Leighton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take the hon. Gentleman's point of order if he cannot wait until the end of the answer.
But may I say to the House that it is very wrong on an issue of such magnitude that anyone must fight to be heard. It is very wrong indeed.

Mr. Leighton: Is it in order and is it helpful and proper for the Prime Minister to pick and choose paragraphs of a document that none of us has had a chance to read?

The Prime Minister: I did not select this particular point. I am replying to it. I do not intend to quote from other paragraphs. A great deal that is pertinent to the point selected by the Leader of the Opposition can be found in paragraphs 278 to 281.
With regard to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the meetings of the Overseas and Defence Committee—this is not found in the report—in 1981 there were 18 meetings of OD. Between January and March 1982 there were a further five meetings of OD. What is arranged is a matter partly for the Ministers concerned. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say how frequently OD meetings were held under his Government. The policy had been discussed and was not changed. There were plenty of meetings of OD.

Mr. Foot: Would the right hon. Lady tell me about the meetings of the Overseas and Defence Committee? Did it discuss the Falklands, in particular the representations that were made on behalf of the Falklands Council by the Foreign Secretary and the representations that were made by the Foreign Secretary for the non-withdrawal of HMS "Endurance" to the Minister of Defence? That was a major division of opinion between the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary. It should have been discussed at the Overseas and Defence Committee. The responsibility for ensuring what subjects are discussed at the Committee rests not with the Foreign Secretary or with the Defence Secretary but with the Prime Minister who is the chairman of that Committee.

The Prime Minister: The report deals fully with what was discussed, when and how those matters were dealt with between members of OD. The report should be read in full. The report points out that the meetings were not again discussed at OD. That was not unreasonable at the time in view of the close contact kept between Ministers on that occasion. It was discussed on many occasions, not necessarily at OD. The right hon. Gentleman thinks that somehow one becomes totally different when sitting as a member of that Committee. I find it utterly amazing that that is the only comment that the Opposition have to offer on this report and its conclusions.

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Lady must not say that. This is not the only question for discussion. We want the House of Commons to discuss this report on the basis stated by the Franks committee itself. It is essential to discuss the whole report.
Can the right hon. Lady answer the other question that I put? Did any Minister or civil servants exercise their right to return to the committee to put their case?

The Prime Minister: That was part of the arrangement made and published with the Franks report. Everything that was put in that letter was, I understand, honoured completely.

Mr. James Callaghan: Although "Endurance" is not the major point, is not the difference between the right hon. Lady's reading of the facts and the case she quoted from paragraph 44, that the then Defence

Secretary in the Labour Government proposed to abandon "Endurance" but was overruled? In the case of her own Government, it was the Foreign Secretary who was overruled when the decision to abandon "Endurance" was announced. That is all the difference in the world.

Hon Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. James Callaghan: On the major question, all parties for many years, including the right hon. Lady's Government, have been prepared to give up sovereignty of the Falklands provided we could get a substantial period of leaseback. The right hon. Lady was committed to that until March of this year.
Is it further not the fact that all Governments were determined not to desert the Falklanders because they thought it would be unacceptable? Was it not also the case that all Governments believed that the worst of all possible policies—one that might be unsustainable in the long run and certainly undesirable in the short run—was a Fortress Falklands policy? Is not the result of the Government's handling of these matters during the last 12 months that we are presented under the direction of the right hon. Lady with a short-term military victory and a long-term political retreat and dead end?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

The Prime Minister: I am very wary of saying anything that is not a quotation from the report. The right hon. Gentleman has seen something of the themes of which he spoke. Factors common to the approach of both Governments are contained in the early pages of the report. The significant themes of the period are summed up in paragraph 70. The dilemma for both Governments was that Argentina wanted sovereignty and the Falkland Islanders, whose wishes we regarded as paramount, wanted to stay British. That was the fundamental dilemma which applied to both Governments. In the end Argentina invaded. With due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, we now have no option except Fortress Falklands—[Interruption.] May I just continue?—if we are to continue, as I believe we should, to honour the wishes of the Falkland Islanders.

Mr. John Peyton: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that there is something pitiful in the scavenge hunt now being conducted by the Opposition for a few crumbs of comfort? Does she not further agree that there ought to be some sympathy for the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who obviously had hoped for a stick with which he might be able to beat the Government and has instead been presented with a mirror to look at his own disappointing visage?

The Prime Minister: The conclusions of the report are clear. I believe the Franks report really should be read as a whole by all right hon. and hon. Members. Adequate time in which to debate the report is being arranged through the usual channels. How long questions continue is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. David Steel: May I join in the thanks to my noble Friend Lord Franks and his colleagues for his swift and thorough report that they have given to the House?
Does the Prime Minister recall that the decision to withdraw "Endurance" was controversial in the House at the time? Will she accept that Lord Franks reveals not only the message from the Falkland Islands Council


but—further to what the Leader of the Opposition said—also the fact that a letter was sent from our embassy in Buenos Aires in the summer of 1981 saying that all Argentine newspaper articles
highlighted the theme that Britain was 'abandoning the protection of the Falkland Islands'."?
That was further supported by an intelligence report in 1981
that the withdrawal of HMS 'Endurance' had been construed by the Argentines as a deliberate political gesture … since the implications for the Islands and for Britain's position in the South Atlantic were fundamental.
In view of what I have said, surely the Prime Minister must tell the House why she did not give support to Lord Carrington when he was trying to retain the ship on station.

The Prime Minister: I believe the right hon. Gentleman is looking at the matter with some hindsight. "Endurance" was retained and, in fact, was on station between the Falklands and South Georgia at the time of the invasion of the Falklands. She had been on station at the Falklands, but was sent to South Georgia when the incident occurred there. She was on her way back when we had the intelligence about the Falklands. Whatever the criticism, the fact is that "Endurance" was on station. The report says that it was a signal to the Argentines, but it also gave many other signals alongside that, some of which are attributable to Opposition Members and some to us. Those signals are contained in the paragraphs to which I have referred.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this matter will be debated in the near future. Therefore, we are not debating it today. I hope that questions will be succinct, and I shall allow them to continue for a while longer.

Sir John Eden: Will my right hon. Friend set aside the Opposition's small-minded questioning and remind the House that the prime act of duplicity was committed by the Argentine junta? Will she confirm that, throughout, Ministers and Government officials made it clear to the Argentine that the wishes of the Falkland Islanders would remain paramount?

Hon. Members: Then why did Carrington resign?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend. Some of the noises we have heard are perhaps due to the fact that some Opposition Members do not like the conclusions of this independent committee. It is inherent in the Franks report that it was Argentina which decided to invade. The report states that the British Government could not have foreseen that invasion, or prevented it. I hope that at this time in particular there will be no question of departing from the wish—which has sustained both sides of this honourable House throughout our many debates on the subject—that the wishes of the Falkland Islanders are paramount, in which case we must defend them in accordance with those wishes.

Mr. George Foulkes: Does not the Prime Minister recall that in the debate on 8 July, when the Franks committee was set up, some of us predicted that, as she had the power to choose the members of the committee—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—and its terms of reference, and as she had the power to manipulate its

publication—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—this would be an establishment cover-up and a whitewash? As the right hon. Lady is one of the few people who has had the privilege of reading the whole report, will she say whether our fears have been confirmed and her hopes realised?

An Hon. Member: Shocking.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will recall that I had consultations with the leaders of political parties in this House. We jointly agreed on Lord Franks as the chairman, and there could be no better servant of this country than Lord Franks. I deeply resent what the hon. Gentleman has said, which I believe to be a criticism and slur on both Lord Franks and the whole committee. We also agreed on Sir Patrick Nairne as the other independent member of the committee. In addition, we agreed that the Opposition and Government parties should propose two names. They were also discussed. Therefore, the arrangements for the membership of the committee were agreed in full and proper consultation across all parties of this House.

Hon. Members: Withdraw!99
The Prime Minister; The terms of reference were debated in this House and I believe, fully approved. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his remarks.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Sir Angus Maude: Would it not be right to emphasis the fact that in a summary annex to this unanimous report, the committee dealt with each and every assertion by opponents of the Government and independent commentators about prior warning or information that the Government had received before the invasion, and found all of them to be without foundation?

The Prime Minister: That is correct. Annex A contains a summary of the various assertions that have been made by various commentators, as well as the findings of the committee upon those assertions.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Was there, in fact, any collective discussion of the Falklands issue between Ministers in the early months up to the end of March last year either in OD, Cabinet or any other collective forum? Am I correct in saying that at the end of her reply to the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) the right hon. Lady indicated that she had no policy for the indefinite future other than that of Fortress Falklands?

The Prime Minister: The matter was not discussed in OD from January to March. If it had been, I do not think that there would have been any difference at all. Lord Carrington kept in touch with all members of OD through a series of minutes over a long period in addition to other contacts. The right hon. Gentleman will find that referred to in the report.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether Fortress Falklands was the only policy. The policy is that the wishes of the islanders will be paramount. That used to be the policy of the Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member. It is the policy that this House has insisted should be upheld. The defence requirements after an invasion now follow from that policy.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the Prime Minister recollect that on Tuesday, 26 October, in answer to Prime Minister's


Question No. 1, she confirmed that the Falkland crisis had come out of the blue to her on Wednesday 31 March? As we now know that nuclear submarines and Royal Fleet Auxiliaries were despatched from Gibraltar on Monday 29 March, and also that the crew of the "Fort Austin", which was possibly carrying nuclear weapons, were told that they were not going home but to the South Atlantic on Sunday 28 March by the barmaids of Gibraltar, how is it that the barmaids of Gibraltar have better information about the destination of the fleet, carrying nuclear weapons, than the British Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman's question was somewhat convoluted. The submarine was dispatched on that Monday because we were worried about the incident on South Georgia. We dispatched the submarine and a Royal Fleet Auxiliary to help keep "Endurance", about which there has been so much discussion, actively on station.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call three more hon. Members from either side before going on to the next business.

Sir Paul Bryan: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in July's debate on the Falkland Islands review, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) stated that, when the Labour Government were negotiating with Argentina in 1977, he made certain that there was a naval presence off the Falkland Islands to strengthen the hand of the negotiating Minister and to deter the Argentines? Does the report cover that situation in its opening chapter, and does it state whether the Argentines were aware of that naval presence?

The Prime Minister: That matter is dealt with in extenso earlier in the report, but also in the specific assertions that are summarised in the annex. The fifth assertion was:
Argentina was informed by the British Government of their decision to send a task force in 1977.
I had better quote precisely. The committee's comment is:
The facts relating to the deployment of ships to the area in November 1977 are set out in our Report (see paragraphs 65ߝ66). We have had no evidence that the Argentine Government became aware of this deployment.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that most people reading this report will not be interested in the preservation of reputations on either side, but rather in the simple question, "Could the lives lost in the Falklands war have been saved if other action had been taken?" May I ask the Prime Minister to turn her mind not to whether the arming of the Falkland Islands earlier might have made an invasion more difficult but to a much more specific political question?
Lord Carrington on 20 September 1979—this is referred to in paragraph 73 of the report—in a paper to the Cabinet said that it was in the British interest and that of the islanders to have substantive negotiations on sovereignty. He came back to the same theme on 12 October when he said that the Fortress Falklands option would carry a serious threat of invasion. That was the Foreign Secretary's view as early as 1979. Why did the Prime Minister veto that very wise political advice and create circumstances in which Lord Carrington's warning came into effect? The real lesson of that page of the report is that it was a political failure by the Government and not

a failure to keep "Endurance" or to send further troops. It is that political failure that the military success has not yet obliterated or dealt with in any way.

The Prime Minister: The Franks report has come to two conclusions: first, that we did not foresee and could not have foreseen the invasion, and, secondly, that we could not have prevented it. It has come to those two clear conclusions. For the rest of the report I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman reads it in toto rather than take specific parts of it. He will find that what he has said has been part of the fundamental dilemma to which the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) referred. If we were to avoid going into what was called confrontation, which has many meanings attached to it and many different levels, we had to negotiate with the Argentines. That was done over many years and the report sets out the history from 1965.
It was thought that if those negotiations ever ceased then there might have been some escalation, and there were indeed from time to time escalations of the situation—times when ambassadors were withdrawn and the Argentines got involved in a number of actions. There came a time when it was difficult to sustain negotiations, but the negotiations in February in New York went rather well and the report offers my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce), the former Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, a rather nice compliment on the way he handled those negotiations in New York.
The Argentines wanted transfer of sovereignty and no British Government were able or willing to accept transfer of sovereignty or to consider it unless it was acceptable to the islanders themselves. That was the dilemma. It affected both Governments. Parliament and Governments of both parties have insisted that the wishes of the islanders are paramount. That put us in a difficult position. Now we have to honour those wishes.

Mr. Raymond Whitney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a bitter irony, the significance of which will not be lost on the British people, in the fact that the Leader of the Opposition referred to paragraph 115 of the report and the need to defend British interests, given that, persistently, the same right hon. Gentleman has been against adequate defence spending and that only a few minutes earlier he reminded the House that he seeks unilaterally to disarm this country?

The Prime Minister: The Franks committee has seen more people, heard more evidence and seen more papers, more reports and more minutes than any of us. It has come to its conclusions. We have no alternative but to accept its conclusions and to read the wider report before we debate it in much more detail. I did go to tremendous trouble to consult about it, for obvious reasons. During that war we kept, with very rare exceptions, all together. I hope we can finish the Falklands story in that way.

Mr. John Morris: If all is well, why on earth did Lord Carrington resign and why did the Prime Minister plead with him not to?

The Prime Minister: I pleaded with him not to because I knew we had an outstanding Foreign Secretary. Lord Carrington resigned because there were adverse comments, because of the effect of the invasion and because of the very considerable criticism of him at that time. He thought therefore that if there was to be total unity from


then onwards, which was absolutely vital, it would be best for him to resign. It was the act of an honourable and very great Foreign Secretary.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Sir Bernard Braine: When the dust settles on all this, will it not be realised that successive British Governments have been negotiating, at least since the military coup in March 1976, with an unstable, brutal, fascist regime and that the main mistake British Governments have made was believing that either Parliament or people would ever have agreed to any transfer of sovereignty over a small British community to such a regime? Looking to the future, would the Prime Minister not agree that the situation could be transformed and that we could start to forget Fortress Falklands if Argentina returned to stable, democratic parliamentary government that recognised fundamental human rights?

The Prime Minister: I agree in part with what my hon. Friend says, but I think it will be a long time before many of us can forget the invasion that occurred or the effort required to liberate those islands. It would require a very different attitude on the part of Argentina, under whatever kind of Government, before we could be certain that she had renounced all claims and would not return to the kind of unpredictable action which one sees under dictators.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Can we have an assurance from the Prime Minister that, as this matter is debated next week and in the weeks ahead, she will not adopt her traditional stance of blaming everyone else and abdicating her full responsibility for what the former Foreign Secretary Lord Carrington had described as a national humiliation?

The Prime Minister: The subject of the debate would be the Franks report. We shall be debating what Franks said and, of course, I am happy to debate that.

London Members (Greater London Council)

Mr. Speaker: I have a brief statement to make. I have to inform the House that my attention has been drawn by two hon. Members, the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Brown) and the hon. Member for Paddington (Mr. Wheeler), to certain words spoken by Mr. Kenneth Livingstone, the leader of the Greater London council and Mr. John McDonnell, the chairman of the finance and general purposes committee of that body, indicating an intention to restrict the provision of new services in the constituencies of any London Member of the House who failed to support the provisions of a forthcoming GLC money Bill.
I am satisfied that this is a matter to which I ought to allow precedence and the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, whose application I received first, is accordingly at liberty to table a motion for the commencement of public business tomorrow, which the House will decide.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With reference to the announcement that you have just made, some of us who are London Members have received no communication from the people that you have named. May I ask whether you can make available to hon. Members, particularly from London, the data and the text of any such statement to which you have just referred?

Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to produce the evidence; it is for the hon. Gentleman who will seek the leave of the House to make his case tomorrow.

Young Persons' Rights

Mr. Tom Clarke: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to entitle all sixteen to nineteen-year-old persons to work, education and training.
The Bill would give every person between the ages of 16 and 19 a comprehensive entitlement to work, education or training with an appropriate wage or allowance. It would place a duty on the Ministers with responsibility for education and employment in United Kingdom to provide such opportunities and to arrange the scheme in such a way as to ensure that as young people move in and out of employment their education and training would continue according to a planned provision.
Two items of some importance appeared in a Glasgow newspaper. While drawing attention to those I should say that my Bill, if accepted by the House, will apply to the United Kingdom. A Strathclyde teacher, Mr. Jack McLean, writing in the Glasgow Herald by way of an end of term report shortly after the start of the summer holidays, described a conversation with one of his pupils who was leaving school:
'Got a job to go to, Billy?' I ask as I sign their School Leavers form. 'Naw' they say"—
which, of course, in Scotland means 'No'—
I put the form back into their hands. It might as well be, it even could be in the future, a petrol bomb I'm putting there. 'Good luck anyway,' you say, 'hope you find something.' Dear God, you think, as you see these children go down the corridor and into the outside world, can we not do better than this?
Mr. Maclean's fears were, alas, realised and expressed a few weeks later in a letter to the Glasgow Herald written by a young girl aged 17 from Ayrshire, Frances Trainer. She said:
I left school in May 1982 with six O-grades and four Highers, expecting to have a better chance than most in the job stakes. Two months later I was at the end of my tether, desperate to work and to prove my worth to an employer. I wrote letters by the dozen, haunted the Job Centre and still nothing. Finally, I gave in and went to the Youth Opportunities—surely one of the worst schemes ever devised. I have worked a 40-hour week for £25 alongside people who earn three and four times that. Nine times out of 10 another person is needed but the employer is content to have free labour for six months, dump you and employ another gullible school leaver who thinks £25 is a great wage.
Those are the views of two people very much involved in the problems which I hope the House will consider seriously this afternoon. They are problems with which I hope the Bill will deal effectively.
Unemployment, overwhelming though we know it to be—in the region of 4 million—hits particularly hard at the 16 to 19-year-olds whom the Bill would cover. The recent report on social trends showed that youth unemployment in Britain had reached a staggering 25 per cent. The figures for Britain in October 1982—the latest available to me—showed that youth unemployment in Britain stood at 262,976. What was just as interesting and saddening was that those involved in activities that were relevant to the youth opportunities programme numbered 280,000. Therefore, in reality, over 500,000 young people in Britain are not in real jobs.
Those figures were reflected in my constituency and, I have no doubt, in other constituencies as well. In Coatbridge and Airdrie 972 young people were registered as unemployed but 977—almost exactly the same figure—were involved in the youth opportunities programme. The young people in the various youth

training schemes, however adequate or inadequate they may be, are cloaking the real figures and the underlying frustrations and resentment among young people, which we as a society ignore at our peril.
For £25 a week many young people are in temporary jobs that are boring, repetitive, lacking in challenge, and offering no promotion prospects whatever. Travel costs of £4 a week cannot be reclaimed so they take home £21 a week. It is surely worth reflecting on the thought that if they were receiving supplementary benefit they would be getting £18·90 a week—a mere £2·10 less for not working at all. But, of course, they do want to work. My proposals to the House reflect the growing view of Britain's young people that we have not properly planned for changing employment patterns, for micro development, for the changing role of employment and its relationship to leisure.
There has been no obviously acceptable strategy for the social and educational fabric of our country. We have allowed cuts in local authority expenditure on education, industrial training boards have been axed, university places have disappeared. We have seen the collapse of apprenticeships, massive cuts in the Manpower Services Commission, a chaotic system of benefits, awards and bursaries for training and education, and, above all, as many of Britain's young people believe, an attack on the wage levels of our young workers.
The Bill would recognise that Britain now has both a training and a youth unemployment problem, for which responsibility should be placed on the appropriate Ministers. It will provide opportunities for positive and rewarding employment, education or training for every young person in Britain between the ages of 16 and 19. It will recognise that essential liberties can be maintained only if our young people are given such basic rights. The Bill also recognises that first-class proposals for education, jobs and training will show that the House does not regard the vast majority of Britain's young people as second-class citizens. Our young people represent not Britain's forgotten generation but our most precious asset for the future. We owe it to them to offer hope for the future in place of the despair of the past.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. James Hamilton, Mr. Jim Craigen, Mr. David Marshall, Mr. Gareth Wardell, Mr. John Maxton, Mr. Michael Martin, Mr. David Lambie, Mr. Ron Lewis, Mr. William Hamilton, Mr. George Foulkes, and Mr. John Home Robertson.

YOUNG PERSON'S RIGHTS

Mr. Tom Clarke accordingly presented a Bill to entitle all sixteen to nineteen-year-old persons to work, education and training: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 22 April 1983. [Bill 56.]

WATER [MONEY] (No. 2)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the dissolution of the National Water Council, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any expenditure attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session empowering the Treasury to give guarantees in connection with sums borrowed by the National Water Council.—[Mr. Cope.]

Orders of the Day — Water Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Mr. Eric Ogden: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps it might be convenient for you to consider, very early in our proceedings, a submission. New clause 5 appears on the Amendment Paper but not on the provisional selection list that was provided by Mr. Speaker. I emphasise the words "provisional selection list". May I make the point through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to Mr. Speaker, that new clause 5 falls entirely within the purview of the Bill?
The Bill's title is the "Water Bill". The long title is:
To make provision as to the constitution and procedure of water authorities and their borrowing and other powers"—
I emphasise "and other powers". The long title also provides, unfortunately, for the dissolution of the National Water Council and seeks
to repeal section 25(1)(d) of the Local Government Act 1974".
Given that this is the Water Bill, that the long title includes the words "and other powers" and that the long title specifically allows for repeal of part of the Local Government Act 1974, I would ask you to submit to Mr. Speaker that new clause 5 should be debated. It states:
In section 11 of the Local Government Act 1974"—
which is referred to in the long title—
(which provides for the statutory rate rebate scheme)"—
and water authorities are to obtain their money on the basis of a rate scheme and of the rateable value of a house—
after the word 'rates' in subsection (1) there shall be inserted the words 'including water rates'.
Unfortunately new clause 5 is not at present included in the provisional selection list but it would give the Minister and the water authority the power to allow water rate rebates just as other authorities are entitled to give rate rebates on the rateable value of houses.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): The hon. Gentleman must not make a speech now. Has he concluded his point of order?

Mr. Ogden: No, Sir. I was suggesting that new clause 5 did nothing that was not referred to in the long title and which the Bill allows others to do. Will you draw to Mr. Speaker's attention my suggestion that it might be possible to debate and discuss this admirable new clause later?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. As the hon. Gentleman will understand, Mr. Speaker has made the selection. However, new clause 5 refers to section 11 of the Local Government Act 1974 and is out of order because that Act was repealed by the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Might it not have been more helpful if the normal procedure for tabling amendments had been followed? We could then have tabled amendments yesterday instead of running the risk of having them starred. Surely it is in the best interests of the House that relevant issues are fully discussed. As a result of a change in the business of the House, hon. Members went away during the recess under the impression that they could spend yesterday getting their

amendments in order. However, they found on their arrival yesterday that it was too late to table amendments other than in the starred form. Although some hon. Members received the message that the Chair might adopt a different attitude towards starred amendments from usual, it was too late for those of us who wished to ensure a proper debate about rebates on the water rate to table amendments.
I should have thought that the procedures of the House would encourage the full and frank debate of such issues and would not prevent a debate because an hon. Member had failed to ensure that a reference in an amendment was completely accurate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It was perfectly possible to table amendments during the recess. I understand that Mr. Speaker has already selected some of the starred amendments, so the hon. Gentleman is not making a particularly sound point.

New Clause 1

REGIONAL WATER RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEES

'(1) Each regional water authority shall appoint a regional water recreation advisory committee which shall have the duty to advise respective water authorities and associated water undertakings on the discharge of their statutory responsibilities, and matters related thereto, in respect of recreation, navigation, conservation and amenity.
(2) Each regional water recreation advisory committee shall consist of not less than 12 members but shall not exceed 20, who shall elect from their own members a chairman and vice-chairman Who shall hold office for each financial year.
(3) Of the members of the committee:

(a) not less than two, but no more than four, shall be appointed by the authority after consultation with those statutory and other bodies who appear to the authority as having a duty or concern for navigation;
(b) not less than four, but no more than six persons shall be appointed by the authority after consultation with national or local bodies who have responsibility or concern for the encouragement of sport and recreation—other than recreational fishing or angling—or who provide facilities therefor;
(c) not less than three, but no more than four persons, shall be appointed by the authority after consultation with bodies concerned with recreational fishing or angling;
(d) not less than two, but no more than four persons, shall be appointed after consultation with national or local bodies having a concern for wildlife or the conservation of the natural environment;
(e) others may be appointed up to the maximum number after consultation with the water recreation advisory committee.

(4) Each member of the committee shall hold and vacate office in accordance with his respective appointment and shall be eligible for re-appointment on ceasing to hold office, but any such member may at any time by notice addressed to the chairman of the respective water authority resign his office.
(5) In making appointments to the regional water recreation advisory committee each water authority shall have regard to the balance of water related activity and features found in their respective regions and for continuity in membership of each committee.
(6) Each regional water recreation advisory committee shall make an annual report to the Secretary of State concerning the discharge of their duties, together with an associated financial statement.
(7) Each regional water authority shall provide its respective water recreation advisory committee with such accommodation, officers and facilities as appears to them appropriate and shall defray expenditure incurred by the committee as they or the Secretary of State shall decide.


(8) Each regional water authority may pay members of each water recreation advisory committee such allowances or reimbursement of expenses incurred by the duties of their office as may be determined by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury.'.—[Mr. Spearing.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we shall take new clause 7—Regional Water Space Amenity Council

'(1) Each Water Authority shall establish a body to be known as the Water Space Amenity Council consisting of:—

(a) a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State;
(b) two members appointed after consultation with the Countryside Commission;
(c) one member appointed after consultation with the English Tourist Board;
(d) two members appointed after consultation with the Sports Council;
(e) members appointed after consultation with such association of local authorities and such bodies representing persons interested in the use of water and of any land associated with water for the purposes of recreation or the enhancement and preservation of amenity, as the Secretary of State considers desirable;
(f) two members appointed after consultation with the National Anglers Council;

(2) It shall be the duty of the Council—

(a) to advise the Water Authority, after consultation with the Countryside Commission, the English Tourist board and the Sports Council, on the formulation, promotion and execution of the national policy for water so far as relating to recreation and amenity in England;
(b) to advise the water authorities on the discharge of their respective functions so far as so relating;
(c) to submit to water authorities any proposals which the Commission consider appropriate for the discharge of the authorities' functions so far as so relating; and
(d) to encourage and assist the water authorities in the preparation of plans and programmes under section 24 below for the discharge of those functions so far as so relating.

(3) The Commission may collate and publish information and reports on matters relating to recreation and amenity in connection with water.
(4) The members of the Council shall be appointed for a period of time to be designated by the Secretary of State and shall, each year, elect a Chairman and Deputy Chairman of their Council.
(5) The Water Authority shall provide the Commission with such officers and such accommodation as the Secretary of State considers appropriate and shall defray any expenditure incurred by the Commission with the Approval of the Secretary of State in the discharge of their functions.
(6) The Water Authority may pay members of the Commission, other than the Chairman of the Water authorities, such allowances as may be determined by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service.'. and the following amendments: No. 10, in clause 7, page 5, line 20, at end insert—


'(2) Arrangements under subsection (1) above shall require each water authority to establish committees, called Consumer Consultative Committees.
(3) The number of Committees to be established shall be determined by each water authority after consultation with each relevant local authority whose area is wholly or partly in the area of the water authority.
(4) The water authority shall secure, as respects each Consumer Consultative Committee, that:—

(a) at least one member thereof is appointed by each relevant local authority;
(b) at least half of the members thereof shall consist of persons appointed by those relevant local authorities;
(c) the Chairman thereof shall be elected by the members from one of their number;
(d) the appointment of a person to act as Secretary thereof shall be made by the Consumer Consultative Committee;
(e) the expenses reasonably incurred by the Consumer Consultative Committee are approved and paid.

(5) In this section, "relevant local authority" means, in relation to a Consumer Consultative Committee, the council of a London

Borough or of a country or district as defined in relation to England in section 270(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 or of a county or district mentioned in section 20(3) of that Act (which relates to Wales) or the Common Council of the City of London of which the area or part of it is in each case included in the area of the Consumer Consultative Committee".

No. 11, in clause 7, page 5, line 21 leave out subsection (2) and insert—

'(2) Any body established for the purposes of representing consumers' interests shall include persons nominated by the following bodies:

(a) the regional organisations of the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress;
(b) Chambers of Commerce
(c) the Consumer Council and the Consumer Association;
(d) the Regional Council for Sport and Recreation; and
(e) local authorities within the area of the Water Authority.'.

No. 13, in clause 7, page 6, line 7 at end insert
';and
(c) to appoint to any consumer body specified by the arrangements such representatives of the interests of consumers in the area as may be nominated by local authorities or other bodies in accordance with the arrangements, unless the Secretary of State directs otherwise.'.

Government amendment No. 15.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause seeks to set up regional water recreation advisory committees in every part of England and Wales that is covered by the respective water authorities. As a Back Bencher I am privileged to move a new clause to this important Bill at prime time. I am glad that the new Secretary of State for the Environment is present, at least for the moment. We look to him for imaginative and sympathetic administration. We know something of his record as a Minister in the Department, and I hope that he will set a precedent by considering, in new clause 1, matters that have nothing to do with party differences.
The new clause does not relate to any party difference. It is a pity that this debate was originally advertised for tomorrow. On 23 December it was announced that this debate would take place on Wednesday. For reasons that we can guess, the business has been transposed. As a result, many hon. Members may not attend the debate today. However, I hope that they will exercise their judgment, if necessary, in due course.
Although there may be a difference of opinion about the advisability of removing all local representation from water authorities, everyone agrees that some alternative or additional means of public consultation must be written into the Bill.
Clause 7 purports to set up some new form of consultative machinery. I hope that there will not be too many differences, but the differences that exist centre on the machinery that should be set up and on whether and how it should be incorporated into statute. I note that the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) has tabled an amendment that relates to strengthening clause 7 and to making the consumer committees that the Government are committed to more effective than at present proposed. There is no need to disagree and there is no difference between us about the powers of the new advisory or consultative committees. They will have powers only to advise, and they will only be consultative.
The differences are fairly narrow and have nothing to do with party politics. Therefore, one of the issues is whether the general advisory consultative committees are good enough. The other is, as far as my new clause is


concerned, whether there need to be additional consultative committees in relation to recreation, conservation, amenity and navigation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) has tabled a new clause that is parallel to mine. His new clause 7 sets up in each region of Britain a machinery similar to that proposed in my new clause. There is not much difference between our new clauses, although there are differences of detail. I should naturally prefer my version, but when the Minister replies he will have to cover both of them together.
There is a strong and important case for the representation, or machinery for the representation, of amenity, recreation, navigation and conservation that is separate from the consumer bodies that are incorporated in clause 7. The Minister need not necessarily accept the wording of my new clause or that of my right hon. Friend. However, if he accepts the principle of a separate advisory committee with statutory responsibility and powers, provided with sufficient accommodation and having to make a public report, preferably to the Secretary of State, he accepts the principle that we seek to establish.
It may be that the Minister cannot accept the precise wording of either my right hon. Friend's clause or mine. However, if he accepts that principle there may be contentment, but if he refuses and says that the Government have considered that the representatives on the consumer advisory committees—those in clause 7—are sufficient for these particular interests, he will be disappointing the House and millions of people.
I say that because the interests concerned are specific and cover a wide section of the British population. Let us look at some of the separate functions other than the supply and disposal of water through pipes and sewers, which is the main financial and operational obligation on the water authorities. There is navigation on rivers and the large number of recreations on reservoirs. There is commercial navigation and cruising navigation. There is the inland sailing world. Dinghys by the tens of thousands are found on the lakes and rivers.
There is rowing and canoeing, which are important sports, particularly for young people. There is swimming, water skiing and sub-aqua, all of which are on the margin between sport and recreation because they involve competitive events such as regattas, but can just be a sport for an afternoon of recreation in the real sense of that word.
On top of all that, there is the world of conservation. The Minister will know that water and conservation is a controversial topic. There have been celebrated cases where the interests of conservation as against flood control or agriculture have been matters of great controversy.
There is also fishing. Recreational fishing interests and angling are already, to some extent, protected by statutory committees, but when we think of the use of water space and the way in which rivers, streams and reservoirs are used for surface recreation or for angling, and for the raising of fishing stock and conservation, it is clear that they must be taken together.
Thus, although fishing is already provided for by statutory committees, if we examine recreation, conservation and amenity as a whole, it is clear that the anglers and the fishing fraternity must be there. As everybody knows, more people go fishing on a Saturday than go to football

matches. It is a rapidly growing recreation, which is also a sport because there is competition in it. It is a strong and proper amenity interest.
The Government cannot deny any of those facts. However, as it stands, clause 7 provides only the very weakest nod in the direction of consumer interests. Clause 7 does not set up machinery in the sense of statutory consumer councils. It does not even—I see the Minister nodding his head in agreement—set up something as strong as the Post Office consumer council. Hon. Members will know from their mail just how strong or weak the Post Office statutory machine is. The electricity boards also have statutory consultative machinery, as do the gas boards, but hon. Members will also know from their mail just how effective or not those bodies can be. Clause 7 arrangements do not even meet the general arrangements of the public utilities.
Clause 7 is for all water "consumers". Water consumers, in the sense of that word, are primarily consumers of pure water coming in pipes through a public service, or private in some cases—a service that we all appreciate and depend upon as the events of this week have shown—and its disposal. That is the prime and main objective and duty of the regional water authorities—the complete water cycle. A great deal of money, investment and technical and managerial expertise goes into that complex process.
Industry is interested in water as well because it uses water in vast quantities. Water is a major raw material. The water authorities also get rid of dirty water in vast quantities, and the cost of that is a very important component not only for industry but for the regional water authorities. As there are all these consumers, it is clear that any consumer council in any regional water authority must, almost by function, be primarily concerned with these major matters of clean water supply and dirty water disposal and purification.
I hope that the Government do not stick to their amendment No. 15 to clause 7. In it, they say that for the purpose of clause 7
'consumers' include persons who use or are likely to use, for the purpose of recreation, any water or land associated with water".
In other words, the Government are making it clear that they extend the definition of consumer to all the interests that I have outlined. In strict terms that is so, and may include those who walk by water on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon stroll.
Does the Minister think that the manifold interests that I have outlined in a whole area, say from Southend to Hull, or from Cirencester to Barking in the Thames water authority can be looked after by one, two or even half a dozen representatives in a consumer machinery that is not laid down in the Bill, and which will be primarily concerned with the major duties of the regional water authorities? I have known the Minister for a long time. I do not believe that he will try to persuade the House that that is what the Government think. The hon. Gentleman knows from his experience as an hon. Member the difficulties that have arisen for local committees covering perhaps a town or half a county in relation to the gas and electricity undertakings and the Post Office.
How on earth will the arrangements under clause 7 be able to cope with the amenity and recreation interests that I have mentioned? I do not believe that the Minister will properly be able to claim that they can. That is why I have


tabled my new clause and why new clause 7 has also been suggested. Our proposals will not give any powers to amenity or recreational committees. They will only establish and constitute them, provide them with offices together with a few people to carry out secretarial work, and ensure that an annual report is made. I would have thought such proposals to be almost harmless. What objection can any Government possibly have to that type of arrangement? Without it, there will be enormous difficulty.
5 pm
In many parts of the country, there are good non-statutory arrangements. A number of unofficial committees have evolved in some water authorities as they have settled down over the last 10 years. They work only within the context of local authority representation on the water authorities with a hierarchy of committees manned by local representations. There has been criticism that the committees have not become sufficiently well known or as efficient as might have been the case. It is, however, undeniable that the unofficial and non-statutory arrangements, which may be operating well in may places, are rooted in the local authority sub-structure. However, the Government are removing the local authority sub-structure. There is at least a risk, given the nine or 15 directly appointed gentlemen from Whitehall who are to take their place, that the unofficial and non-statutory arrangements will be unable to flourish as they have done.
If these arrangements are to continue, the Bill ensures that they will operate within a completely different statutory framework. The reaction of many hon. Members will be to call for a statutory consumer network or at least a network related to recreation, navigation and amenity. Until now, this has been handled on a national basis by the Water Space Amenity Commission. Every chairman of a regional water authority has been a member, ex officio, of that body, as he has of the National Water Council. Those two bodies are to be wound up. There will be no national statutory network to sustain and encourage any of the informal arrangements aleady in force. Not only the regional statutory framework, but the national statutory framework, is changed. The Water Space Amenity Commission had a duty to advise water authorities on their statutory functions under sections 20 to 22 of the parent 1973 Act. That also disappears. It is yet another reason why there is need to subsitute at local level some form of statutory advisory committee.
I should like to make a regional point of some significance. As the hon. Member for Newham, South, I have the privilege of being a Thames riparian member. The Thames is Britain's premier river. The management of the river is well known throughout the world for its efficiency. The old story of the water of the Thames having gone through five or six stomachs before hon. Members or the people of London drink it is well known. This has only been possible because of excellent water cycle management over the years. The Thames water cycle was working towards the end of the last century and long before the 1973 Act.
What the Minister may not know is that the River Thames has been managed by local representatives since 1750 when the first Thames commissioners were appointed. An Act of 1770 set them up in a big way. The commissioners were numerous. They included every riverside hon. Member and the mayor of every Thames

riverside town as well as landowners and others. In the middle of the last century, the Thames Conservancy was created and went out of existence only in 1973.
Under the Bill's proposals, the Thames Water Authority is to be managed by Whitehall nominees. All local representation in the management of the Thames, for the first time in over 200 years, will disappear. That may be claimed to be an emotional point. It is, I believe, much more. The management of the Thames, especially the Thames Conservancy of blessed memory, has an enviable reputation in combining the fundamental functions of clean water supply and dirty water disposal together with all the amenities we have come to respect and enjoy.
The upper Thames, in its semi-artificial state, is the joy of landscape painters. Yet it fulfils all the other functions that I have described. This is because a single body, the Thames Conservancy, was responsible for water supply and disposal and for amenity, recreation, navigation and fisheries. The Minister may argue that this state of affairs will continue. That is not so. It will not be the same. Although the Thames Water Authority will be responsible, those managing it will not be local people. For the first time in history, they will be appointed by the Secretary of State. It will be a very different local set-up. This will be repeated all over the country, not merely for the other navigable rivers such as the Trent and the Severn, and the Calder and the Ouse, but for every reservoir owned by local authorities where the local council or an adjacent council has been able to have its say on the board. All that is to disappear. Nothing adequate is at the moment to take its place.
On the issue of specific water recreational advisory committees, I would have thought that the Government would leap at the opportunity. Hon. Members hear so often that the Government wish to safeguard the public, to set the people free and to give power to the people. It is a theme heard constantly from Conservative Members. I seem to recall hearing it often from the Prime Minister herself. We hear constant criticism of bureaucrats. We hear constant criticism of quangos. However, what are the Government doing? They are doing the exact opposite. They are creating new quango water authorities, which are directly appointed by Whitehall, and they are putting fully-paid bureaucrats in charge of them, with no additional safeguard for the public.
I shall not argue about whether what these new bodies do is necessary. That is not part of this debate. The Government think that it is necessary, and they have so persuaded the Committee and the House on Second Reading. If that is so, they have a reciprocal obligation to see that the risks of so doing, the risks of bureaucracy, and the risks inherent in every quango are dealt with, and that the public are properly safeguarded. That is fully in line with their election manifesto.
I hope that I have shown that the safeguards are not at all adequate. The responsibilities of water authorities are clear. In sections 20, 21 and 22, the responsibilities are clear. Section 20 deals with navigation and recreation. Section 22 says that regional water authorities
shall have regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest, and of protecting buildings and other objects of architectural, archaeological or historic interest and shall take into account any effect which the proposals would have on the beauty of, or amenity in, any rural or urban area or on any such flora, fauna, features, buildings or objects".


As I said, hon. Members know how much correspondence these matters engender. If no such proper amenity and recreation local committees are set up, local Members will have to handle these issues. I am sure that no one on the Government Benches wants extra mileage on those issues, because we all know how much mileage they will generate and how strong feelings are. If we have a regional recreational advisory committee where people interested in these matters can get together with the experts of the regional water authorities and administrators, and perhaps discuss informally how these matters can best be dealt with, come to the optimum solutions, and put them to the water authority, hon. Members need not be bothered—nor, indeed, the Minister. At present, no such possibility exists in practice.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment gave an undertaking on 9 December 1982 in Committee. He said:
We shall seek to write into the Bill the reaffirmation of the statutory position that was included in the 1973 Act. This will ensure that under the new Act regional water authorities will have to provide the kind of linkages whose description I gave in the first part of my reply."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 9 December 1982; c. 200.]
Linkage is the fundamental issue. In their amendment to clause 7, the Government are trying to say that the general consumer councils will be the linkage. I hope that I have shown that they will not be adequate and that they will not do the job.
Although there has been little notice, I have received some support for that view. I have had letters of support from the British Canoe Union, the River Thames Society, the Countryside Commission, the Salmon and Trout Association, the Inland Waterways Association, the British Water Ski Federation, the Sports Council for England, the Sports Council for Wales, the Central Council of Physical Recreation, the Council for the Protection for Rural England, the Calder Navigation Society, and the Broads Society, as well as many letters from subsidiary organisations, branches and individuals.
5.15 pm
I want to quote the letter I received only this morning from the North West Council for Sport and Recreation which says:
This Clause we would support since, within the North West Region, the Regional Water Authority, through its various holdings, has a major influence on recreation. Its land holdings total some 150,000 acres, of which thirty-eight thousand are within the Lake District. The remainder is distributed … as follows:—

47,000 acres in Lancashire
36,000 acres in Cheshire
10,000 acres in Merseyside
19,000 in G.M.C.

… There are also some 3,000 miles of river, and in excess of three hundred reservoirs.
That is in the North-West region alone. To suggest that the interests and dilemmas inherent in that scale of plant can be dealt with by clause 7 committees is unrealistic in the extreme.
I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply, because I know that his practical common sense, if nothing else, will ensure that even if he cannot accept the wording of the new clause, he will accept the principles and thinking behind it.

Mr. Denis Howell: So as to keep my speech within reasonable bounds, I shall adopt most of the arguments that were put by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), whom I congratulate on his assiduous devotion to this issue, particularly during the Christmas recess, and on the trouble that he has taken to get in touch with many of the organisations which are directly involved.
It is well within the knowledge of hon. Members that when the 1973 Water Act went through this place, the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) described the use of our water resources for the purposes of recreation, sport and amenity as the third dimension—a totally new dimension in the use of the nation's water resources. That thinking, with which both sides of the House agreed, led the Government in the Committee on that legislation in 1973 to make arrangements for the Water Space Amenity Commission and to relate them directly to the National Water Council.
The dilemma in which we now find ourselves is that the Government, for reasons best known to themselves—only a Conservative Government could do this, and it is a matter to which we shall return again and again—have decided to abolish the nationalised industry of the National Water Council, and establish in its place 10 new nationalised industries. That rate of inflation exceeds everything they have done on the economic front. So we are faced with the dilemma of how to translate what the House wanted, the meaning of the 1973 proposals to create a national Water Space Amenity Commission, in a meaningful fashion in the new 10 independent authorities.
My hon. Friend read out the undertaking that was given by the Minister in Committee, so I shall content myself with merely referring to it. The Minister said that the use of water resources for recreation, sport and amenity was such an important matter that he would seek to protect its statutory provision in the 1973 Act. Now we have before us the Government's proposals in that regard, amendment No. 15. The Government are trying to persuade the House that, by giving sports, recreation, amenity and conservation interests representation on a consumer council for each of the regional water authorities and the Welsh water authority, they are providing an adequate substitute for the much more vigorous and direct powers of the old Water Space Amenity Commission.
We reject the Minister's proposal, although we accept that he has made it in good faith. We do not believe that it gets anywhere near giving statutory rights to sporting, recreation and amenity bodies in the way that existed under the old WSAC arrangement. That is the principal reason why we shall be voting against the Minister's proposal and supporting the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), which is a much more adequate substitute.
Why is it proposed to eliminate WSAC from statutory provisions? How did the Government reach such a decision? We know that there was no consultation with WSAC. It was not even asked about its future. It was eliminated overnight. General Galtieri could not have done a more effective job of elimination than that which was carried out by Ministers. That is what happened to the WSAC. That has raised our suspicions and those of all concerned with sport and recreation.
Everyone who has had any association with the WSAC will concede that it has done an outstanding job of work. I was responsible for these matters for five years while in


government and I consider that its most important achievement was to ensure, on account of its statutory provision, that every one of the 10 water authorities took recreation and sporting amenities fully into account and ensured that the legitimate interests of anglers, boaters, swimmers, campers, caravanners, preservationists and amenity bodies were safeguarded by the authorities.
When I was a Minister I found it invaluable to be able to ask WSAC for its advice. I have in mind the attitudes of a number of water authorities but I think that they have probably changed now. However, they might persist, and it must be remembered that we are legislating for the next 50 or 100 years. We are not doing so for those who are here now. No doubt it is the Minister's hope that the Bill, when enacted, will remain on the statute book for 50 or 100 years. If his hope is fulfilled, he cannot know who will be controlling these interests in future.
When on holiday in the south-west and the north-west I discovered lakes of considerable amenity importance that were not accessible to the public. On two pleasant occasions following two successive holidays I returned to my ministerial office and sent short, sharp messages to WSAC and the water authorities concerned to ask why lakes, which were public property and which they had the privilege of managing on behalf of the nation, had railings all around them to ensure that the public had no access to them.
I am glad to say that in both instances action was taken very shortly after the writing of my letters. However, action in the north-west was taken only as a result of WSAC's intervention. It persuaded the regional water authority concerned that there was no danger in allowing the public access to Thirlmere and that such access was in every way justifiable. It stressed in its intervention that the public should have access both to the water resource and to the immediate gathering grounds for activities such as camping and rambling. The public had always had access for angling purposes.
It is proposed that we should eliminate all local authority representatives from any right of membership on any of the regional water authorities. The Bill removes the rights of the ombudsman. On new clause 3, we shall be discussing the right of the press to have access to all the meetings of water authorities. We are asked to remove all these safeguards and to take it on trust from the Minister and the Government that sport and recreation will get a fair deal and that we can rest content with consumer councils providing the answer to the problem.
As I said in Committee, it is my view that consumer councils are not a great source of satisfaction to any of us who know in practice what they can achieve. We shall have another toothless wonder which will not satisfy anglers, water skiers, ramblers, swimmers, campers, caravanners, conservation interests and countryside interests. In new clause 7 we seek to say that there should be representatives of the Countryside Commission, the English tourist board, the Sports Council and the National Anglers Council on the sort of body that we have recommended in the clause, having regard to the new type of authorities that have been created.
I cannot understand why the Minister is not prepared to have a water space amenity council set up as of right by statute. Even that would give only half the provision that sportsmen and amenity interests have at present with WSAC as a national body. However, it would be better than nothing.
Statutory representation on a consumer council must, by definition, be limited. Presumably such a council will consider a range of water matters including charging, the quality of water and the efficiency of an authority in dealing, for example, with repairs. Sport and recreation interests will be only one small part of a consumer council. Let us acknowledge what the House acknowledged, that sport and recreation is a new dimension of growing importance. Its importance can never be overstated.
The number of people with enforced leisure available to them who wish to take advantage of the opportunities that we wish them to have is growing. There are the 4 million unemployed, those who are retiring earlier because of the economic situation or from personal preference and those who have more extended holidays available to them now than ever before. This means that the leisure provision of the nation is of growing significance in its affairs. This should be reflected by establishing in every area an organisation akin to that which has been available for the past 10 years at national level.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is there not a danger also that the majority within the consumer councils may be at variance with the minority view of those who are interested in recreation in areas where there are water facilities?

Mr. Howell: That must be an obvious danger. If there are representatives on the councils of commercial interests, trade unions and consumers generally, the representatives of sport and recreation will be outnumbered. It would have been even more pertinent if my hon. Friend had said that the interests of those who are concerned about recreation will be sometimes diametrically opposed to some of the other interests that will be found represented on consumer councils. Many of the other representatives will say that the only issue that matters to them is keeping down the price of water. Some of us will be saying that it is important, even if it involves a slight extra cost, to provide services that ensure that water is used as an amenity for the whole nation. Therefore, my hon. Friend has made a pertinent point.
5.30 pm
I shall not labour my intervention, but I want to record my great concern on behalf of sporting and recreation interests that the Government have not acceded to our proposal that every water authority should have a water space amenity council.
When the Government consulted on this matter, they did not consult WSAC itself. They consulted the sports bodies widely. About 200 sports bodies are members of the Sports Council. They consulted all the countryside and amenity bodies associated with the Countryside Commission. When the Government consulted all those bodies, not a single sporting, recreational or amenity organisation supported their proposals. All were largely hostile to them. We shall reflect that hostility by voting against the Government's proposals, which means that we shall vote for new clause 1, although I hope that the Minister, even at this late stage, will obviate the necessity to do that by telling us that he is prepared to have another think about the matters that we regard as being of considerable importance.

Mr. Neil Thorne: I wish to speak to amendment No. 13. In Committee I expressed concern


about clause 7 as proposed because many organisations such as the National Farmers Union, which, in addition to local authorities, are entitled to nominate representatives to consumer consultative committees, are particularly concerned that water authorities would continue rejecting nominees until they were offered a name that was acceptable to them. In reply to my concern, the Minister gave two reasons why he was not willing to accept my amendment—first, that the Government were engaged in consultation on guidelines for consumer consultative committees and did not wish to pre-empt the result, and secondly, that there should be provision for water authorities to refuse a nomination if they were aware of something that made it inappropriate for the nominee to be appointed. He added that a nominated person might be in dispute with the authority. One wonders whether such a person might be an ideal person for such a committee. Perhaps the Minister was referring to a legal dispute rather than one of another nature.
With regard to the first part of the Minister's answer, the laying down of certain general requirements by Parliament in this legislation would not appear to be inconsistent with continuing consultation on the details of the constitution and operation of consumer consultative committees. With regard to the second part of the Minister's answer, the amendment allows scope for just such an eventuality through the intervention of the Secretary of State.
I am also concerned that the clause appears to refer specifically to the Secretary of State for the Environment rather than the Secretary of State for Trade, or, more properly, the Minister for Consumer Affairs, who would be the most appropriate guardian of the public interest. I appreciate that the matter is being dealt with in haste, but I am concerned that the public, who would need to refer to those consumer consultative committees, ought to be clear that they are at arm's length and that the water authorities would not therefore be controlling them.
I appreciate that the ultimate appeal is through the Member of Parliament, but my hon. Friend the Minister will appreciate that we already have considerable demands on our time by way of complaints against various public utility undertakings. I hope that we shall be able to try to reduce the volume of complaints that we are likely to receive by ensuring that the public are clear and satisfied with the service that is provided. Therefore, I hope that we can make it clear that there are no conflicts of interest. It would seem right and proper that the Minister for Consumer Affairs was intimately involved in the matter. That surely is what his job is all about.
Therefore, I urge my hon. Friend to re-examine my points in the interests of and in fairness to the consumer. I hope that in doing so he will be able to allay the very real fears that exist on this subject.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I was unable to hear the whole of the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I believe that it was extremely substantial. I am sure that he made a convincing case.
I shall refer in particular to new clause 1 because I fear that under the new structure we shall remove the water authorities from political sensitivity. In my part of the world the thousands of people who are interested in

angling have to travel many miles to indulge in their chosen activity. If present policies persist they will not have to travel many miles, but they will find it increasingly difficult to exercise proper political pressure to secure a higher priority for the necessary improvement of our rivers and streams.
It is dangerous to try to establish a structure that protects a body from political pressure and insulates it from necessary sensitivity. I hope that my hon. Friend's argument, the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) and the obvious logic of new clause 1 will lead the Minister to look carefully at the matter.
This week I have been looking at a recent publication by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Today I wrote to Ministers in the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which in many ways is perhaps a bigger villain in the piece than the Department of the Environment. That formidable document, which I hope will receive ministerial attention, concludes that there is already excessive secrecy in many areas of concern. If the environmental and conservation interests, with which I am heavily associated, are to fear that there will be further secrecy and greater insensitivity, the frustration and justified anger that are already felt will increase.
Given my right hon. Friend's argument about the increase in leisure time and the need for adequate access and conservation arrangements, the conservation interests are entitled to feel that they should be given an opportunity to express adequately the real concern about secrecy and the waste of public money. That concern is clearly and formidably presented in the report.
The contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath was convincing. He demonstrated the need for ministerial holidays. I am glad that his holidays were put to good use.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): indicated assent—

Mr. Hardy: I am glad that the Minister agrees, because this Government are more in need of a long holiday than any previous Government. The longer holidays they have, the less damage they will do.
The situation is unsatisfactory at present. The Bill is likely to make things worse. My hon. Friend's proposal is a useful way of ameliorating the defects inherent in the Bill. I trust that the Minister will build on the remarks that he made last year, which suggested that he would take a helpful view on this matter. His remarks will be logical and consistent if he accepts my hon. Friend's proposals.

Mr. Tony Durant: I wish to speak to amendment No. 10, dealing with representation on the water consumer committees. We are all well aware that local authorites and councillors—I speak as vice-president of the Association of District Councils—were very unhappy about the Government's proposal to change the structure of the boards. We received a great deal of correspondence and many people felt bitter about this. I do not share their view. I believe that the Government have taken the right course. It should be placed on record, however, that many councillors felt that they were doing a reasonable job on the water authorities and have now lost representation. Of course, some of them were keen, took an active interest and served the water authorities well,


although there were others, unfortunately, who did not turn up. In other cases the turnover was too rapid. Nevertheless, the background is that local authorities felt deprived of representation.
The water authorities arose out of local government and were originally the creatures of district or borough councils. There is thus a feeling that something of the past has been cut off and local authorities feel deprived of representation. Although I do not necessarily support that view, it is important that that anxiety should be on record.
With regard to the consumer committees, local authorities feel that instead of merely suggesting nominations, as at present proposed, they should be able to nominate to the new consumer committees as of right. This would at least increase their involvement and elected representatives could express the views of those whom they represent at consumer council level. I support that view.
My amendment also suggests that the chairmen of consumer committees should be elected from among the members. I rather support that view. I support the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) that the consumer committees should be at arm's length from the water authorities if the committees are to have any strength at all. One of the weaknesses of the gas and electricity consumer councils is that they are too close to the nationalised industries involved. I certainly favour keeping the consumer committees at arm's length.
I tabled my amendment—I know that I cannot move it at this stage—because I believe that this aspect requires careful consideration. Local authorities feel strongly about it and the Association of District Councils asked me to table the amendment.
I have been approached by the Reading ratepayers, who are very active in my constituency, about the rights of ratepayers to examine water authorities' accounts. Despite pressure to remove those rights, they were maintained before the latest proposal. The Government gave way on that occasion and allowed such examinations to continue so that ratepayers could make a considered judgment as to whether their money was being used wisely and carefully. The ratepayers now fear that that power is being removed. I am not sure whether that is so. Perhaps the Minister will make it clear whether the new proposals deny ratepayers the right to examine the accounts. The powers may in fact remain, but the Reading ratepayers suspect that that is not the case and have asked me to raise the matter. That is, of course, the view of most ratepayers' associations throughout the country, but the Reading group approached me as the local Member of Parliament.
Having explained the reasons for my amendment, I shall listen carefully to the Minister's reply. I shall also be interested to hear his views about the examination of accounts.
I have some sympathy with the views of the hon. Member for Newham, South on the leisure aspects of the water industry. I am a member of IWAAC—the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council—so I am very much involved with the Thames and other waterways and amenities. I am also a member of the Southern Sports council, so I have a considerable interest in the points raised. I am nervous about the hon. Gentleman's proposal, however, in that he seems to be proposing another quango and I am nervous about quangos. That is why I am not entirely convinced by his argument.

Mr. Spearing: If a quango is a quasi-autonomous national government organisation, the water authorities themselves are quangos, but surely a consumer and/or advisory committee as it were shadowing a quango cannot also be a quango.

Mr. Durant: What quangos are is a matter of opinion, although the hon. Gentleman's interpretation is certainly correct in terms of the meaning put forward by at least one of my hon. Friends. Nevertheless, all such bodies tend to breed more bodies, so I am reluctant to create another.

Mr. Spearing: IWAAC is one.

Mr. Durant: Yes, IWAAC is a quango of a sort, but we managed to save it. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman and I were both involved in saving it.
To sum up, I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's view but I am not sure that his proposal is the best way to proceed and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response to the new clause. The main burden of my speech, however, relates to amendment No. 10 dealing with representation. Having explained the purpose of that amendment, I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) in his dislike of quangos, but he set out from an illogical position. He should have attacked the Government's proposals and suggested that the water authorities should be under democratic control. The proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) would not then be necessary. Having started from the Government's proposal to set up the new quangos—the water authorities—and to remove democratically elected representation, it is important to redress the balance and to have some representation for recreational interests in the decision-making process. I am therefore happy to support my hon. Friend's proposal at this stage. If we have to put up with the Government's basic framework, it is important that recreational interests be included in the consultation process and can make their voices heard.
The Government suggest that this could be achieved simply by setting up a consumer body and including in it one or perhaps two people representing recreational interests. The Minister cannot have thought very carefully about the problems involved, as there are major conflicts between the various recreational interests. One could not expect one person or even two people to represent all the conflicting interests. Inevitably, the person involved will have a particular background—he may have a keen interest in fishing, boating or some other aspect—but he will be expected to represent not only the groups of recreational users with which he has been associated but many others with which he is regularly and frequently in conflict about the use of resources.
If the dialogue is to be useful, it must be a two-way process in which the recreational users can put their views to the water authority, which may in turn explain the difficulties, problems of cost or other reasons why it cannot do as much as those users wish. The conflicts between the different recreational users may be resolved through an advisory body of that nature, but it would be extremely difficult for that process to be channeled through just one or two members of a consumer body.
I cite one problem. I am continually approached by fishermen in my constituency who are most aggrieved at the loss of angling facilities. Fishermen point out the tremendous pressure in some urban areas to fill in ponds because some people can make money by doing that. They discover that their ponds disappear or that they must pay an increased rate for their use because the landowner says that he can make more money by filling it with rubbish than by fishermen stocking it with fish and fishing it.
Fishermen find that the number of areas that they can use is being eroded. They are always looking for new ones. They can use reservoirs in the north of England, but they want more areas to use. They also point out the increasing conflict about the uses to which existing areas of water should be put. They say that there is far more competition than there used to be.
There are now many more people who enjoy canoeing. Twenty of thirty years ago few people owned canoes in Britain. Buying canvas and plywood to make a canoe involved a good deal of pocket money and much time spent on a Saturday job. It is now much cheaper for a youngster to buy a fibreglass canoe or to make it himself. Immediately, we are faced with conflict between fishermen who do not want waters to be disturbed and someone who wants to splash about in a canoe.
Twenty or thirty years ago it was unusual for someone to own a power boat and for the peace and quiet of a space of water to be disturbed by an outboard motor. It is now much cheaper and easier for people to go boating with such motors. The new sport of windsurfing also demands open water. All those interests want more water space and more opportunity for recreation. Far more people have far more time and money to spend on such recreations.
There is also the conservationists' interests. They want to preserve more water space for wildlife which is not disturbed by people or noisy boats. It is extremely difficult for a water authority to reconcile all those interests. There is a danger that a water authority will simply say: "Because we are being pressed by so many conflicting recreational interests, we shall do nothing about any of them."
One of the things that the National Water Council has managed to do in the past few years is demonstrate that conflicting interests can be reconciled. It has also enabled recreational users to have more insight into each other's problems and to encourage greater understanding and co-operation in the use of water amenities. By setting up a proper recreational users' body, such interests could be reconciled much more effectively.
Who will campaign for more resources? That is another important subject. I regret the tendency among water authorities to give low priority to recreational interests. Some water authorities have given much more attention to public relations and saying that they are doing something for recreational users than they have to achieving something practical.
With regard to river pollution, much could be done for anglers in the north-west if rivers such as the Mersey and the Irwell were cleaned up. Much is being done to channel effluent into sewers, but there is still occasional pollution of those rivers. The pollution is often sewage and it is often the water authorities who are to blame. Such effluent may not make the rivers much more obnoxious but a sudden shock of noxious material kills many fish. Therefore,

some rivers cannot be stocked with fish, not because the normal level of pollution is too high for them to survive but because they are occasionally killed off by shocks of pollution.
The Government have made some play about extra money for cleaning up the Mersey, but many of my constituents want more to happen. They believe that a forceful recreational users' advisory committee could campaign far more for rivers to be cleaned up so that they may be brought back into recreational use, especially for fishermen.
In the north-west, there are many old reservoirs that were built by water authorities in the last century. Many did not have treatment plant, so water went straight from the reservoir to the tap. Much more could be done to ensure that some of those reservoirs are brought into public use, especially for sailing and canoeing. It is now rare for water in such reservoirs to find its way straight to the tap without passing through treatment plant.
Not only does the water authority in the north-west have substantial areas of reservoirs and rivers, it owns large tracts of moorland. It undertook in the last century to maintain clear areas of land so that water going to the reservoirs would not be polluted. Now that water is treated by cleaning plant, it is far easier to gain access to those moorland areas but large areas are still not open and access to them could be allowed.
Water authorities are also under pressure to balance their books. The water authority in the north-west is increasingly under pressure to plant conifer trees on its land. That may increase its income but it is changing the landscape. Groups that are concerned with the conservation of wildlife are unhappy about that development. An advisory body should be able to discuss those matters.
It used to be a tradition in the Greater Manchester area to flood land in the river valleys during the winter to take off storm water. In January and February the flooded water meadows froze over. The water was often less than a foot deep and it provided an attractive area to go skating. Most water authorities have stopped that practice.
Far more should be done to increase recreational uses. That cannot be done by putting one or two people on a consumer body. Many interests are involved and there is bound to be conflict. The best solution is to set up an advisory body to ensure that there are regular meetings between that body and the water authority so that conflicts can be discussed and water authorities contributions to the quantity of areas for leisure amenities can be extended.
I beg the Minister to accept the amendment. If the Government are not prepared to accept it at this stage, the subject should at least be examined carefully in the other place. I am sure that many noble Lords will want to discuss the subject at greater length. There is much interest in wildlife, conservation and recreational uses in the other place. I hope that before the Bill becomes an Act, the Government will accept the spirit of the amendment even if they do not like its present wording.

Mr. Robert Banks: Water authorities have a uniquely important role in recreation. I wish to speak in support of the broad aims of new clause 1.
Recreation involves a wide range of sports, activities and amenity groups. Each of those groups generally forms itself either into an association or a club. They are enthusiasts. It is vital that they should be enabled to be in


close contact with water authorities. By being members of a recreational committee, their influence as a spur to water authorities to improve amenities, and as a body that receives information from water authorities, would be enhanced. As often as not, it is the lack of communication between people and authority that can lead to misunderstandings and difficulties. The advantage of having committees of people drawn from groups, associations and bodies that are especially knowledgeable, and have their feet on the ground, would be of great importance in cutting through any areas of misunderstanding between their objectives and those of the water authorities.
6 pm
In many parts of Britain the water authorities have done a good job. For instance reservoirs that have been opened for fishing have produced a marvellous amenity. I could not conceive of a reservoir where fishing had been introduced being closed because it had not been fully utilised. Membership of some of the reservoir fishing clubs has to be restricted because of the large numbers of people wishing to fish. But in some areas reservoirs are lying idle and have not been opened up to sport. If the committees are established they could draw the attention of water authorities to the opportunities that could be developed to give more people a better chance to enjoy themselves in the country.
I shall listen with great care to what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say. I hope that he will consider the position of those who have colossal enthusiasm and wish to play a part in developing recreation in Britain. It is those who will be of the greatest benefit to the greatest number of people.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall speak briefly to new clauses 1 and 7. As the Bill proceeded through Committee, we were told that the Government's objective was a more efficient water industry. My hon. Friends and I must ask ourselves, at what price? That is what the debate is about. The traditional industry, is being transformed from a public service into a profit-making exercise, perhaps pending privatisation. The Minister and his hon. Friends have concluded that the previous arrangement of WSAC was an encumberance—an obstruction to profitability in the industry—which is why it is being so ruthlessly phased out.
Consultation with various bodies, which was provided for in the water industry as it has traditionally existed, is being removed—whether it be with local authority representatives on the water authorities, the ombudsman or the press. In this debate, I am concerned with the body that has taken upon itself the responsibility to guard the nation's interests in recreational water facilities. The new clauses would create regional WSACs. That is being done in the spirit to which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) in 1973 referred as the third dimension. That was also referred to by the Opposition. The third dimension in 1973 related to water recreation, wildlife sports—including angling and fishing—skiing, canoeing, sailing, diving, adventure holidaying and water conservation—all areas in which it could be seen that the public would have a recreational interest.
The public's great fear about the Bill is that the Government are no longer sensitive about those issues, but are preoccupied with ensuring that water authorities make profits irrespective of the wider public interest. The

Opposition wish to establish who will assume those responsibilities. The Government's amendments deal only partly with that because it seeks only to place on consumer committees those who are likely to use water or land associated with water for recreational purposes. That is a sop—an inadequate substitute for what has traditionally existed. As I said when I intervened earlier, we are deeply concerned that the representation of recreation on the consumer committees will be outvoted and dominated by other interests.
When the Minister replies, he should direct himself directly to that matter. It is his role to convince the House that those interests, as they have been traditionally represented, will be equally represented by the two persons serving on the proposed consumer committees.
The new clauses recognise the need for the widest form of representation, whether that be the Countryside Commission and its members with an interest in the protection of the countryside; the English tourist board that has a traditional interest in exploiting water resources for tourist purposes; the Sports Council, which will be represented because of its interest in water-related sporting activities; the local authorities that will be represented for obvious reasons or the anglers who must have a direct interest. My constituency and those of two members of the Cabinet form part of the British lakeland in Cumbria. I hope that they want the most effective representation of angling groups. Perhaps excluded—but I am sure that the spirit is embodied in the new clauses—are the representatives of the national park planning boards and the Lake District planning board.
All those organisations have a real interest in an area that has traditionally been the responsibility of the WSAC. We want the WSAC to be replaced by regional WSACs that have exactly the same responsibilities. They must have equal access to Ministers so that the voice of the recreational consumer in the national parks and urban areas can be heard clearly. Millions of people from urban areas annually descend upon the national parks and their voices must not he stifled by the commercial interests that will dominate the inadequate consumer councils proposed by the Government.

Mr. Giles Shaw: We have had a substantial debate about various aspects of recreation. It is an important area, and I understand why right hon. and hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. The water authorities operate in large measure within the terms of reference laid down, and unaltered, in the 1973 Act. Section 20 makes it clear that they have a duty that they must discharge. It requires them
to take such steps as are reasonably practicable for putting their rights to the use of water and of any land associated with water to the best use for those purposes.
Those purposes are the importance of recreation and amenity. They must discharge that duty, which is in no way altered by the provisions of the Bill.
We are debating the appropriate arrangements for consumers and whether I can satisfy the House that arrangements for those who use recreational facilities will be provided. In that context, the Government put down amendment No. 15, which defines consumers as those persons who participate in recreation. The amendment triggers clause 7, which allows duties to be imposed to make provision for consumers in the water authorities, including the consumers of recreation.
In Committee I quoted from a letter that I received from the chairman of the South-West regional water authority, who was writing on behalf of all other water authority chairmen. He committed them to national consultation with national recreational and sporting bodies. A recreational and amenity advisory committee will be formed within the proposed association of water authorities, which will provide a forum of discussion with the recreational and sporting bodies as and when a need for such meetings is identified.
This is not WSAC in another guise. Hon. Members have rightly drawn attention to WSAC's substantial contribution but the fact that WSAC would be wound up by the Bill shows that in large measure WSAC has done its job. That was to ensure that the recreational potential for water authorities should be properly and fully developed. In the period of about 10 years in which WSAC operated under the ambit of the Water Act 1973, that duty has been largely discharged. The water authorities agree that there should be consultation at the national level.
Hon. Members are anxious, especially the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) who moved new clause 1, about the Committee's intention to consult bodies connected with conservation, in respect of which water authorities are under a duty under section 22 of the 1973 Act. Given the importance widely attributed to nature conservation, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), the House will welcome the linkage at the national level.
I also said in Committee that in all regional water authority areas it was intended to include sport and recreation committees to establish links at the regional level with sporting organisations. Amendment No. 15 will allow that to be done within the ambit of clause 7, which will provide that adequate arrangements must be made for consulting consumers and that the Secretary of State must approve such arrangements before they can be implemented. In our opinion that is the correct place for the amendment. Those who use recreational facilities are consumers with a special interest. Amendment No. 15 emphasises that the special interests of those consumers will be catered for by the water authorities when they prepare their report and arrangements under clause 7.

Mr. Alec Jones: If by accepting amendment No. 15, we somehow strengthen representation on the consumer councils, how is it that consumer councils in Wales, before the amendment was tabled, could have fishing, recreational and amenity interests on those bodies?

Mr. Shaw: The right hon. Gentleman raised a similar point in Committee. The legislation under which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales acted in the intermediate period will subsumed by clause 7. Together, the two provisions will provide that wealth of consumer consultation so beloved by the Welsh.
Unlike new clauses 1 and 7, our amendment does not provide for the establishment of new bodies. We do not think it appropriate to spell out in detail in primary legislation the committees and their constitutions that are necessary to meet the needs as they are perceived today. Needs vary over time and there is a substantial variation

in the requirements of individual regional water authorities and their consumers, ranging from very small authorities to very large ones.
We intend to ensure that water authorities establish committees at regional level. In that way, we could provide linkage with the sport and recreational bodies for which Opposition Members are asking. The water authorities will be required to do so and they will be required to submit proposals to be endorsed by the Secretary of State. That will ensure that the guidelines that we have already circulated for comment, when they are finally submitted and approved, will ensure that the water authorities appoint specific recreation committees that will also deal with conservation issues and ensure that they are consistently applied under each regional water authority.
I say to the hon. Member for Newham, South, who moved new clause 1, that I accept the need to make a more specific commitment to the process of handling recreational and amenity issues at regional level. The correct way to do that is in a manner consistent with the consultation process with consumers rather than by the establishment by primary legislation of a range of bodies such as he proposes.
6.15 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) sought reassurance about nominations to water authorities' consumer consultative committees. I agree that in principle water authorities should appoint to their consumer consultative committees those who are nominated by the relevant bodies and that the water authorities should not exercise their own preference. We shall make that point clear in the final version of the consumer guidelines.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) asked about local representation. In the same way, it would be appropriate for local authorities to accept the nominee representatives who are proposed. District councils will have on the consultative committees a representative for each district that comes within the operating division of the water authority so they will constitute a substantial number of those who are entitled to serve on the consultative committees. We have not specified in the consultation document whether those representatives should be a majority. However, I imagine that about half the membership will be drawn from local authorities. I also assure my hon. Friend that there will be no change in the ratepayers' right to examine a cut.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South asked about joint approval of the system of joint consultative committees. I agree that it is appropriate that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade, and the Minister for Consumer Affairs in particular, should agree the final proposals for consumer consultative committees. We shall therefore discuss the proposals with him and he will share in their approval. He should also share in the approval of individual proposals for each regional authority which will emanate from clause 7 when that becomes part of the Bill.
The House should not accept new clauses in the manner proposed by the hon. Member for Newham, South, and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). The proposals that we have made take on board the fact that undertakings should be both taken and delivered that in executing their statutory duties under sections 20 and 22 of the 1973 Act, the regional authorities should set up a structure which reflects at the national level


a commitment to consult recreational, amenity and conservation bodies and, at regional level, a separate consultative committee to deal with regional variations of the same bodies. By making that recommendation in our consumer consultative guidelines, we would be separating sport, recreation and conservation from the wide range of issues that would normally be on the agenda of such consumer consultative committees.

Mr. Durant: My hon. Friend answered my point about representation, but I should be grateful if he would clarify it again. Can each local authority in the area covered by the consumer consultative committee make a nomination that might be accepted, or will each authority have a nomination to the committee by right? There is a slight difference of emphasis.

Mr. Shaw: I remind my hon. Friend that the consumer consultative committees are still in draft proposal form. However, it is intended that each committee should be drawn from an area comparable to a water authority division, and within that committee each district council that is represented in the division should have a representative on that committee. The nominations may come from bodies other than individual district councils, such as an association of local authorities, but my purpose in answering my hon. Friend's point was to accept that it would be wrong for water authorities to be selective about local authority representation. Unless there are special reasons, they should normally accept the recommendation of the local authority or the association of local authorities. I hope that that answers my hon. Friend's query.
My final point, in recommending that the House should accept amendment No. 15 and not the new clauses, is that in understanding what the hon. Member for Newham, South is trying to do, I reiterate that we can and should provide both separation and commitment from local authorities to the recreational, amenity and conservation bodies at regional and national level. It does not require a major addition to this legislation. It requires proper interpretation of the powers in clause 7. It is our final intention that the guidelines to be issued under that clause will provide much of the contact and the commitment that the hon. Gentleman seeks in his amendment.

Mr. Spearing: I thank the Minister for the great compliment of not dissenting in principle from anything that I said in my speech. I regard his silence on the wide range of matters as a compliment, although he did not make it explicit. I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Davis) and Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) for their support, and the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks), who supported my sentiments. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington referred to the distinct nature of the Lake District. My proposed new clause contains a flexible constitution. As in the Lake District, where the interests of climbers or walkers on land owned by regional water authorities are taken into account, there is provision for such representation on what I still believe are necessary regional advisory committees. Of course, that representation varies from one part of Britain to another, which is one reason why we need separate and specific legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) helpfully put his finger on a matter that I should have emphasised more in my opening remarks. That is that

the non-dirty water, clean water consumers—the recreation, navigation and conservation interests—are not an interest as a whole but have inbuilt tensions and competition among them. Only in the form that we advocate can they learn to live together and come to a common approach whereby the total value of water space can be enhanced by the minimum contribution of money. After discussing and learning together they can say to the water authority, "We disagree on this, but in general we have come to these conclusions." That process of constant consultation, backed by the statutory duties of providing recommendations and giving advice, alone will provide the results that the Minister believes that he can obtain from his solution. It cannot be done in his way.
The Minister said that sections 20 and 22 provide the statutory responsibilities. Of course they do, but how are they to be exercised? That is the fundamental question. The hon. Gentleman referred to his speech of 9 December and to the letter from the chairman of the South-West regional water authority. The letter stated that, at regional level, the Government would expect to include in all regional water authority areas sport and recreation committees appointed by the new authorities. That is fine up to a point, but although the Minister mentioned wider interests in his speech, sport and recreation—important though they are—are only part of the total amenity picture. I hope that the non-statutory committees will go wider than that. If they do not, they cannot comprehend, discuss and agree upon the inevitable conflicts that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North pointed out so eloquently.
Even if the committees are established on a regional basis, they will be inadequate. The Minister offered some movement in that direction and said that the guidelines, which we have not yet seen, will require such committees. He went on to say in reply to the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) that, in addition to a committee for sport, recreation, amenity and conservation—if it is extended that far—there will be regional consumer groups for other matters. There will be difficulties in that proposal, especially if there are guidelines.
As the Minister has not gone far enough on this matter of principle, and as I have received so much support from all those bodies, and as the central body is being dissolved—the Minister glossed over the central non-statutory machinery—we must protect the interests of the public, who own the water facilities and who have the right to be consulted about their use. On those grounds, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support new clause 1.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 218, Noes 277.

Division No. 41]
[6.27 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Adams, Allen
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.


Allaun, Frank
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Alton, David
Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Buchan, Norman


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Callaghan, Rt Hon J.


Ashton, Joe
Campbell, Ian


Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Canavan, Dennis


Beith, A. J.
Cant, R. B.


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cartwright, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)






Clarke, Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)
Lambie, David


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Lamond, James


Cohen, Stanley
Leadbitter, Ted


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Leighton, Ronald


Conlan, Bernard
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Cook, Robin F.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Cowans, Harry
Litherland, Robert


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Crawshaw, Richard
McCartney, Hugh


Crowther, Stan
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McElhone, Mrs Helen


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
McKelvey, William


Davidson, Arthur
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
McMahon, Andrew


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
McWilliam, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Marks, Kenneth


Deakins, Eric
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dewar, Donald
Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)


Dixon, Donald
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dobson, Frank
Maxton, John


Dormand, Jack
Maynard, Miss Joan


Douglas, Dick
Meacher, Michael


Dubs, Alfred
Mikardo, Ian


Dunnett, Jack
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Eastham, Ken
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


English, Michael
Morton, George


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Evans, John (Newton)
Newens, Stanley


Ewing, Harry
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Faulds, Andrew
Ogden, Eric


Field, Frank
O'Halloran, Michael


Fitch, Alan
O'Neill, Martin


Flannery, Martin
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Palmer, Arthur


Ford, Ben
Park, George


Forrester, John
Parker, John


Foster, Derek
Parry, Robert


Foulkes, George
Pavitt, Laurie


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Pendry, Tom


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Penhaligon, David


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Pitt, William Henry


Golding, John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Gourlay, Harry
Prescott, John


Graham, Ted
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Race, Reg


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Radice, Giles


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Harman, Harriet (Peckham)
Richardson, Jo


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Haynes, Frank
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Heffer, Eric S.
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Robertson, George


Home Robertson, John
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Homewood, William
Rooker, J. W.


Hooley, Frank
Roper, John


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Howells, Geraint
Sandelson, Neville


Hoyle, Douglas
Sever, John


Huckfield, Les
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Short, Mrs Renée


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Janner, Hon Greville
Silverman, Julius


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Skinner, Dennis


John, Brynmor
Snape, Peter


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Soley, Clive


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Spearing, Nigel


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Spriggs, Leslie


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Stallard, A. W.


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Steel, Rt Hon David


Kerr, Russell
Stoddart, David


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Stott, Roger





Strang, Gavin
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Straw, Jack
Whitlock, William


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wigley, Dafydd


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Thomas, Dr R (Carmarthen)
Williams, Rt Hon Mrs (Crosby)


Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


Tinn, James
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Torney, Tom
Winnick, David


Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Woodall, Alec


Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Wainwright, R. (Colne V)
Wright, Sheila


Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Wardell, Gareth



Wellbeloved, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Welsh, Michael
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett and


White, Frank R.
Mr. Peter Hardy.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Dickens, Geoffrey


Alexander, Richard
Dorrell, Stephen


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Ancram, Michael
Durant, Tony


Arnold, Tom
Dykes, Hugh


Aspinwall, Jack
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Eggar, Tim


Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)
Elliott, Sir William


Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)
Emery, Sir Peter


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Eyre, Reginald


Banks, Robert
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell


Bendall, Vivian
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Farr, John


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Fell, Sir Anthony


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Best, Keith
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fookes, Miss Janet


Blackburn, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Blaker, Peter
Fox, Marcus


Body, Richard
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gardner, Sir Edward


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bowden, Andrew
Glyn, Dr Alan


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Braine, Sir Bernard
Goodlad, Alastair


Bright, Graham
Gorst, John


Brinton, Tim
Gow, Ian


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Grant, Sir Anthony


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gray, Rt Hon Hamish


Brotherton, Michael
Greenway, Harry


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Grieve, Percy


Browne, John (Winchester)
Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Buck, Antony
Grist, Ian


Budgen, Nick
Gummer, John Selwyn


Bulmer, Esmond
Hamilton, Hon A.


Butcher, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hannam, John


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Haselhurst, Alan


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hastings, Stephen


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Hawkins, Sir Paul


Churchill, W. S.
Hawksley, Warren


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Hayhoe, Barney


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Heddle, John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Henderson, Barry


Clegg, Sir Walter
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cockeram, Eric
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Colvin, Michael
Hill, James


Cope, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Corrie, John
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Cranborne, Viscount
Hooson, Tom


Critchley, Julian
Hordern, Peter


Crouch, David
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)






Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Renton, Tim


Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman
Rhodes James, Robert


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rossi, Hugh


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Rost, Peter


King, Rt Hon Tom
Royle, Sir Anthony


Knight, Mrs Jill
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Knox, David
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lamont, Norman
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lang, Ian
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Latham, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lawrence, Ivan
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lee, John
Shepherd, Richard


Le Marchant, Spencer
Shersby, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Silvester, Fred


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sims, Roger


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Smith, Dudley


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Loveridge, John
Speed, Keith


Lyell, Nicholas
Speller, Tony


McCrindle, Robert
Spence, John


Macfarlane, Neil
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


MacGregor, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Sproat, Iain


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Squire, Robin


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Stainton, Keith


McQuarrie, Albert
Stanbrook, Ivor


Major, John
Stanley, John


Marland, Paul
Steen, Anthony


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Stevens, Martin


Mates, Michael
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Mather, Carol
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Stokes, John


Mawby, Ray
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mayhew, Patrick
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mellor, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Thornton, Malcolm


Miscampbell, Norman
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moate, Roger
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Monro, Sir Hector
Trippier, David


Montgomery, Fergus
Trotter, Neville


Moore, John
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Morgan, Geraint
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Viggers, Peter


Murphy, Christopher
Waddington, David


Myles, David
Wakeham,John


Neale, Gerrard
Waldegrave, Hon William


Nelson, Anthony
Walker, B. (Perth)


Neubert, Michael
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Newton, Tony
Waller, Gary


Nott, Rt Hon Sir John
Walters, Dennis


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Ward, John


Osborn, John
Warren, Kenneth


Page, John (Harrow, West)
Watson, John


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Wells, Bowen


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Parris, Matthew
Wheeler, John


Patten, John (Oxford)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Pattie, Geoffrey
Whitney, Raymond


Pawsey, James
Wilkinson, John


Percival, Sir Ian
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Winterton, Nicholas


Pink, R. Bonner
Wolfson, Mark


Pollock, Alexander
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Porter, Barry
Younger, Rt Hon George


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg



Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Tellers for the Noes:


Proctor, K. Harvey
Mr. Donald Thompson and


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Mr. David Hunt.


Rathbone, Tim

Question accordingly negatived.

NEW Clause 3

RIGHT OF ACCESS BY THE MEDIA

'The provisions of the Public Bodies (Admission of Press to Meetings) Bill shall apply to the meetings of the Welsh Water Authority and each regional water authority in England.'—[Mr. Denis Howell.]

Brought up and read the First time.

Mr. Denis Howell: I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this we may discuss Government amendment No. 31.

Mr. Howell: New clause 3, dealing with the right of access by the press to meetings of the water authorities, is of considerable importance. That right has been historic, traditional and of considerable importance for many years, not just to the press but to the public interest as a whole. The Government propose to remove that right of access not just to meetings, but to papers and the thinking of managerial and scientific advisers in the industry. We are amazed at the breathtaking character of that proposition.
Most water authorities derive their undertakings from local government. For the past 100 years the press has had access to essential information and to the managerial decisions and policy considerations involved. We must consider whether that traditional access has been of any importance. The only answer is that it has been of overwhelming importance, especially during the nine years since the passing of the Water Act 1973.
The elimination of the press from water authority meetings should not be considered in isolation from other proposals in the Bill. We must also have regard to the fact that every local authority in the land will have its elected local representatives eliminated from the membership of water authorities. In addition, every regional water authority will no longer be accountable to the ombudsman in his investigation of any abuses that are brought to his attention by customers or local citizens. Indeed, because the Government propose to eliminate local councillors and access to the ombudsman, the press will be the only effective presence available at water authority meetings. That makes media access even more important and vital than has previously been the case.
As a substitute to this great democratic safeguard that we have always enjoyed, the Government propose a cosy round-up of information to be provided by the water authority chairmen at the conclusion of each principal meeting. Of course, the press and, therefore, the public, will be told only of issues and matters that the chairmen and authority members bring to their attention. What a ludicrous proposition.
The essence of our democratic system is that the weight of public pressure can make itself felt. Such public campaigns and pressure can be educated, informed and effective as a result of the information available before the meetings take place. Most of us would agree that the greatest weakness of all in the nationalised industries—this applies to gas, electricity and the Post Office as well as to water—is that the consumer council system, on which the Government are now choosing to rely, has in practice proved totally inadequate in generating public interest and creating legitimate public pressure. That is something about which we must be concerned.
6.45 pm
Let me name a few of the issues about which the public should be informed so that there can be proper debate and so that sensible pressures can be brought to bear on water authority members. These are issues in respect of which total access to information by the press is of considerable importance. There is the strategic planning of our water resources. Any hon. Member who has been a Minister in the Department of the Environment knows perfectly well that there are now various means by which additional water supplies can be made available for the benefit of consumers. It should be remembered that when we talk about the water cycle—the provision of water, its use, its clean-up and its return to the system—we are talking about a time scale of not less than 20 years.
Once an alternative Government are in office and are pursuing policies to get the economy moving again, we shall need more water to sustain industrial recovery. Water authorities such as Severn-Trent will then have to decide whether to build additional reservoirs or whether to transfer water by the river basin system from areas of plenty to areas of scarcity. That very problem confronted me at the time of the great drought, but it is now relevant to hon. Members who represent Wales and who are concerned about the pricing policy of the water authorities. A third option, which a Select Committee in another place reported on last week and seems to favour, is the provision of additional water using the bore-hole system.
Such matters are of importance to water authorities, be they in Wales or the English regions. Many people have differing views about such matters. For example, every time it is proposed to build a new reservoir in the middle of Dartmoor, concern is expressed by amenity groups, conservationists and others. That is the first of the great issues that should be argued publicly from day one. The moment an engineer proposes to build a reservoir, extract water from a river system or obtain water by boring, the public are entitled to a say. They have legitimate opinions to express not only on the practicality and cost of such proposals but on the amenity considerations. Strategic planning is, therefore, of cardinal importance.
Nowhere in the Bill are we told who is to be responsible nationally for strategic planning. We are abolishing the National Water Council but nothing has yet been put in its place. One can only assume that either it is to be left to the Thames water authority separately to make what it can of national strategic planning needs or it will all be done in Whitehall by the Ministry, which thinks it knows better than anyone else. The Minister should tell us what he proposes or else the press will be left to ferret around, as they certainly will, members and employees of regional water undertakings. It is much better to be open with them, give them all the information, and let them have access rather than have them ferreting round because from my experience the results of that are likely to be more embarrassing to Ministers.
The second point to which I draw attention is the importance of pricing policies. The average water bill for each household is about £65. We hear a lot of argument about it but when we think about not having clean water and adequate sewerage arrangements available, which might be the case next week, we realise what good value for money the £65 per annum is. There are very few issues that have been more emotive in recent years than the increasing price of water. We know many of the reasons. Often people equate the cost of the supply of water,

sewerage and drainage services with what was previously a bill for only one of those processes, the supply of water. Whatever view one takes about the cost of water it is of considerable public interest and there should be full access to information and to the discussions within water authorities.
Under the same heading of pricing policies, the relationship between the capitalisation of the undertaking and the revenue implications of those capital undertakings which affect pricing is also of great importance.
I turn to the abuse of power. No one can deny that during the nine years of the existence of the Water Act there have been occasions when the press have thought it right to report what they believed to be abuses by bureaucracy concerning the water industry. Many illustrations immediately come to mind. I do not think it will be challenged that abuses have existed and have been brought to our attention by the press, which does a great public service, enabling Members of Parliament to table questions. We would not have known about many of these matters had it not been for the vigilance of the press, particularly the local press, in reporting them. Those of us who have been on the receiving end of press comments which we did not like often had cause to smart. In our more sober and rational moments we appreciate that it is vital in a democratic system that the press should have access to meetings.
I was astonished that one of the reasons given by the Government for terminating the right of access by the press should have been that advantage had not always been taken of the right and that the press had not turned up at every meeting. We must be honest and admit that that is true. The press does not turn up at every meeting of Committees of the House. Although we are safeguarding its interests, it is not particularly plentiful in its presence now. That is not the issue. The point is that it knows in advance what a committee will be discussing and it has the right to attend if it wishes. It must make a judgment. We cannot expect newspapers to send reporters to every meeting of every public authority to which they have the right of access. It would be economically impossible. To suggest that we eliminate the right because it is not exercised at every sub-committee meeting in the land is such a nonsensical proposition that I am amazed it was ever put forward.
Health standards are of vital importance. There is also the question of wage negotiation and industrial relations about which I will say nothing because that will be the subject of the next batch of amendments. When a water authority takes up an attitude on wages and industrial relations, the press should have the right to be there to present the information to the public. Another important matter to be dealt with by water authorities, is sport and recreation policy. Again, I will not elaborate on that because we have just had a debate about it.
Originally these matters were brought to our attention by the Guild of British Newspapers Editors. Most of us are indebted to it for this example of its vigilance in examining Government proposals. In the press release issued on 11 January, the guild says that having looked at what the Government said in Committee it has no reason to change its fundamental objection to the proposals. The guild draws attention to what the Prime Minister said in her maiden speech in 1960 when she introduced the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Bill. We would like to reinstitute those provisions in relation to water authorities;


although Mr. Speaker, in his wisdom, has not selected that amendment I think I may refer to it. The Prime Minister quoted the following words:
Publicity is the greatest and most effective check against any arbitrary action."—[Official Report, 5 February, 1960; Vol 616, c. 1351.]
All that any one can say to that is amen.
At Question Time today, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) asked the Prime Minister why, when she had introduced that Bill which she wished to apply to everybody, she was now against the principle in respect of water authorities. The Prime Minister said it was because water authorities would be different under this Bill. If I took down correctly what she said, she said that they will now be executive bodies. Of course, that is our great objection to the whole of the Bill. It seeks to remove the water industry from the democratic process and to turn water authorities into executive bodies. I can only say in response to the Prime Minister's reply, "game, set and match." The Prime Minister conceded the whole of our case against the principle of the Bill. Local authority is being butchered. The Prime Minister did not put it in that way but that is what she meant. Local democracy is being butchered and executive control is being substituted for it.
The Guild of British Newspapers Editors also tells us that the size of the authority ought to have nothing to do with the principle of admission and points out that regional health authorities are no bigger or no smaller but roughly the same size as the proposed water authorities. It regards the voluntary code of practice as
a shabby substitute for a legally established right of access".
That is something with which all hon. Members must agree.
Labour Members have not tabled new clause 3 for purely political advantage, although I hope that there will be some political advantage in seeking to secure the democratic rights of the British people and the traditional rights of access for the press. We are interested in the essential question how we should govern the affairs of national industries—particularly in one where it is proposed that 10 boards will operate where previously there was only one authority—with regard to access information for the press and the need, indeed, the duty, to stimulate the right sort of public discussion arising out of such information being readily and freely available to the media. That right, which has existed since the beginning of the water industry 100 years ago, should be maintained. It is a disgrace that the Government are proposing to eliminate it and we shall most certainly be pressing new clause 3 to a Division this evening.

7 pm

Mr. John Spence: I shall not delay the House for more than a minute or two in speaking on new clause 3, which I support. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) will remember that, during proceedings on the Water Bill in 1973, which was piloted through the House by Sir Graham Page—when I did a small bag-carrying job for him—we had considerable difficulty in getting the House to accept the admission of the press to water authorities' meetings. It was achieved only by the great efforts of Sir Graham Page. That was a battle which Conservative Members fought to win.
I am disappointed that the Minister—who is not only a Minister but a friend—should see fit not to accept the

remonstrations that have been made both in Committee and elsewhere to include the right of the press to attend water authorities' meetings. It is no answer to the points made to refer to such bodies as the Central Electricity Generating Board or the National Coal Board or such area institutions. Those bodies were established a long time ago and certain aspects of their activities would be subject to the surveillance of the press if we were creating such bodies now. Nor do I regard with favour the exclusion of the press when the activities of the new water authorities are described as being executive and are not subject to the ombudsman's jurisdiction. That is a step backwards, not forwards. The water authorities are rate-levying bodies and people have the right to be represented.
I ask the Minister to consider carefully what he is doing and not to be subverted on the way but to stand up and fight for the right of the press to attend the meetings of bodies which are charging people rates. He will know from his constituency postbag that such matters are the subject of considerable correspondence and dissatisfaction. I see nothing in the Bill which will remove that.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I welcome, as I am sure all hon. Members will, the forthright and succinct speech of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Spence). No doubt he shares a water authority with the Minister. They both represent constituencies in Yorkshire. The Minister should listen to the sound common sense of a fellow Yorkshireman on this occasion.
The advice of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton is firmly planted in the traditions set by the Prime Minister in 1960 when she moved her private Member's Bill—the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Bill. In her maiden speech she dispensed with all the customary formalities about the beauties of Finchley and got straight down to business, moving the Second Reading of her Bill. In doing so the right hon. Lady was forthright and clear. In addition to what was quoted earlier by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), she said:
I do not know whether hon. Members generally appreciate the total amount of money spent by local authorities.
She then went on to give the figure of £1,400 million a year for England and Wales. How times have changed. The Prime Minister went on to say:
Those sums are not insignificant, even in terms of national budgets. Less than half is raised by ratepayers' money and the rest by taxpayers' money, and the first purpose in admitting the Press is that we may know how those moneys are being spent.
That is surely right. To remove that from an industry that is spending large sums of money that are raised by direct levy, by direct precept upon the British ratepayers, is indefensible.
The Prime Minister went on to use the words that have already been quoted. In doing so, she was quoting, topically enough, from the Franks report, although on a different subject from the current one. It was:
Publicity is the greatest and most effective check against any arbitrary action.
She went on to say:
That is one of the fundamental rights of the subject"— [Official Report, 5 February 1960; Vol. 616, c. 1350ߝ1].
Yet here we have one of her Ministers coming before the House asking hon. Members to remove the effect of her legislation from this important area of activity. It is impossible to find any justification for that.
The first people to notice the damage that would be done were not only the newspaper editors but the local authorities. I have had correspondence from local


authorities in my constituency, not of any particular party political persuasion but a mixture of independent and party political councillors, expressing their strong objection to the removal of the press from meetings of a body which will be able to levy rates through the rates machinery on their ratepayers. They have become accustomed to the fact that they must be subject to the scrutiny of the press at all their meetings. It sometimes irks them when they are criticised but they accept it as part of the democratic process. They do not see why a body with the powers and financial resources of the water authority should be free from such public scrutiny.
I cannot understand why the Government should want to exclude the press. Can it be that the embarrassment that was caused when some local authority decisions were shown by the press to be ludicrous and extravagant has built up in the Department of the Environment a feeling that we should protect water authorities from such criticism and scrutiny in the future? The uncovering by the press of abuses and waste in the water authorities was a major and necessary public service.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the answer might simply be that it is for the same reason that the board of ICI or Courtaulds would not allow representatives of the press access to their meetings?

Mr. Beith: They have similar misgivings and reservations, but the boards of ICI and Courtaulds are not spending the money that the ordinary British ratepayer has to pay in water rates. That is levied upon them and is not the same as the choice to buy a company's products or shares. A body that can levy rates upon the British people, that is not elected by them and to which the press has no access, is in an indefensibly protected position. Therefore, it will be likely to behave badly. If such protection is built up around a public body, some of the most important safeguards against unwise, extravagant and careless action are removed.
In answering my question this afternoon the Prime Minister's reason for excluding the new water authorities from the purview of her legislation was that these are to be executive bodies. That is a bogus argument. Hon. Members and the British people, both in local authorities are elsewhere, are concerned about the authorities precisely because of the executive power that they will be able to exercise. They are not merely executive bodies, but policy-making bodies. They will make policies over whole areas of activity and decide how to spend large sums of money. It is the same sort of responsibility as local authorities exercise, and it should be subject to public scrutiny and accountability. The members should be elected and not appointed by the Minister. At the very least, there should be proper public scrutiny of such power. To say that we are talking about executive bodies is to dismiss the range of their responsibilities or to imply that, due to the nature of their power, they are somehow entitled to be protected from press scrutiny.
Underlying the Bill is the Minister's philosophy about the new shape of the water industry. It appears that both he and the Prime Minister mean that under the new system the members of water authorities will not have any powers but will do as the Minister says. They are appointed by the Minister, so they will go away and do exactly what they are told. They will make no decisions of any consequence,

so there is no point in sending a lot of journalists along to report an authority's meeting, when the only subject of debate will be what the Minister has told it to do and how the members should set about doing it.
If that is the Minister's view of the water industry he should come clean and tell us so. He should make it clear that hon. Members will be able to ask questions about every activity of every regional water authority. The Minister will be making the policy decisions and the authority members will be his executive servants, like civil servants who work behind the counter in local DHSS offices. Let us get the picture clear and understand the type of parliamentary accountability that is implied.
However, if the bodies are to enjoy—as the Act implies—considerable autonomy and freedom to plan expenditure and to make policy decisions, they will then behave like any local authority, with money raised in the same way. Therefore, they should be subject to the same scrutiny as local authorities. If they are not, the worst abuses will follow. I cannot see how the Government can possibly defend their stance tonight by seeking to exclude such bodies from proper press scrutiny.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: The fiction is that, after the Bill's passage, water authorities will be purely executive businesses, and will not need press surveillance. However, that is entire fiction.
Let us consider some of the policy-making functions—as opposed to the pure business functions—to be carried out by water authorities. We must ask ourselves whether the press should monitor the arguments and discussions that eventually result in policy decisions. Unless the press monitor them, the public will be inadequately informed about them and unable to bring pressure to bear to influence them. The provision of recreational facilities involves the admission of the public to or exclusion of the public from, reservoirs and their surrounding land. It also involves expenditure, and a decision about how much should be spent. Those are not business or executive matters, but policy issues. They are political issues, with a small "p".
The folly of direct billing has resulted in an increase in total costs to the consumer and in a significant increase in the office space demanded by water authorities. That space is paid for not only by consumers, but by those who are connected neither to the water mains nor to the sewers. They are paid for through a tax imposed by the water authority. Environmental service charges are nothing more or less than a tax, and I do not agree with the principle of an entirely nominated body imposing taxation. The Minister's argument is that it represents only a small proportion of the total cost. We have heard that argument before. It is said that it is only a small baby, as if the principle is any different. Of course the principle is in no way different.
7.15 pm
We should have gone in the other direction and set up directly elected water authorities. The system of indirect nomination by local authorities has been a failure, because their members have not considered themselves accountable to the local authorities that appointed them. However, the Bill calls for more, not less, press monitoring. We should be clear about that. In theory, local authority nominees used to have a majority on the board, even if


they never really chose to exercise their power, and like others who do not choose to exercise their power, in the fullness of time lost it, and bewailed its loss too late.
Our only recourse will be, as Members of Parliament, to ask the Minister to dismiss the chairman and members of the board. The Minister has made a rod for his own back. In future, he will be very busy. As the only source of remedy, he will rightly be at the receiving end of all the criticism. After all, he has written into the Bill that the powers will fall on his shoulders through elected Members of Parliament. There is no other avenue of redress, so the Minister and his successors will have a busy time.
The clause is essential because of the political—with a small "p"—decisions that the body will take. For example, how much will be spent on new and lavish headquarters and on staff perks, such as new motor cars, paid for by the consumer, who has no redress? Will that be concealed from the public who pay for it? Alternatively, will the arguments take place in the presence of the press and the media? They must do so.
My hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues are fond of saying that there is a parallel with the gas industry. However, someone who is not connected to the gas supply does not pay any gas bills. Therefore, there is no analogy, and my hon. Friend should be well aware of that. Similarly, the extent of flood prevention work is a political decision. The Minister may say that such subjects are for the decision of land drainage committees. That may be so, but the resources at the disposal of the land drainage committees will be provided by a body whose members are not appointed by elected bodies.
Once again, everyone will have to look to the Minister for redress. I foresee an even busier future for him in my crystal ball. What arguments could be advanced against a press presence? We know the type of argument that will be advanced. It will be said that a merely executive business is involved. However, that argument is not tenable, because it does not accord with the facts. That is why I shall vote for the new clause, which is not only excellent, but vital in the public interest.

Mr. Peter Snape: I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) on his succinct argument, and on clarifying the matter for all of us. I also congratulate him and his hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Spence) on having the courage to say that they disagree with the proposals in the Bill and intend to vote accordingly. This is one matter that is more important than the views of the Government Whips' Office, and the issue on which the House, above all, should be prepared to stand up and say that it believes in the principle of democracy and accountability. Part of that principle is open access to the meetings of public bodies such as the one that we are discussing in this amendment.
Just over a decade ago those of us who served on the late lamented local authorities campaigned in various ways against the 1972 Local Government Act. On my local authority there was general unity among the three political parties. We all felt that the Act would not help local democracy, and that the creation of the new and bigger authorities would make local democracy a thing of the past and create bureaucratic and remote bodies. Regardless of our party allegiances, we should all now be inclined to say that that is what happened.
Immediately after the 1972 Act was put on the statute book, the previous Conservative Government embarked on the wild gamble of amalgamations, changes and new bodies. One of the gambles was the creation of the regional water authorities. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell), who knows more about these matters than I do, said earlier that the price of water is about £65 per household, which he said could be regarded as a bargain. Water is, after all, an essential part of life and if that is a reasonable and legitimate price, we all accept that that is the price that it is necessary to pay. However, I know that that price is considerably in excess of the price of water at the time that the regional water authorities were formed. I would hazard a guess that, compared to the rise in the rate of inflation since the mid-1970s, the price of water has increased fairly dramatically.
As the hon. Member for Tiverton said, part of the aftermath of the creation of water authorities was separate billing. I agree with him that no one will ever convince me that the adoption of such a procedure did not lead to an increase in administrative staff. As the hon. Member also pointed out, it led to an increase in the somewhat palatial headquarters of the water authorities, not the least the Severn-Trent water authority, which more or less covers my constituency.
Many of the excesses of the Severn-Trent authority became public knowledge through the activities of local and evening newspapers covering the area. It seems to me that the new bodies will be concerned to exclude newspapers so that embarrassing news can be covered up. However, without the activities of the newspapers in my constituency and in the Severn-Trent water authority area, many of the things that have come to light would not have done so.
Reference has already been made to the fact that the present water authorities will be replaced by these executive bodies. I do not approve of executive bodies, and that is not because nobody has ever asked me to serve on one. However, they are noticeable for their belief that they know what is good for the rest of us.
When the present Government decide to set up an executive body, alarm bells ring. I look round my region, which I share with my right hon. Friend the Member for Small Heath, and I notice that where the present Government have responsibility for the reappointment of members of executive bodies, they follow party political interests. I was going to say that anyone who shows sympathy with the Labour party is replaced, but I should say that anyone who is not an apparently devoted member of the Conservative party is removed and replaced by someone who is regarded as politically more sound.
If the present Government are to appoint these bodies, they will not depart from their practice since the 1979 election. We shall have an executive body packed with Conservatives with free time on their hands, one-time whiz-kids who, thanks to the bankruptcies in their companies due to the policies of the Government that they appear to support, have enough time on their hands to do the paid bidding of the Government of the day.
My hon. Friends, and many Conservative Members who have spoken, regard the presence of newspaper reporters at meetings of such bodies as essential. The borough of Sandwell has had four members of the Labour party serving on it since its creation. The borough is also well served by having two evening newspapers. If the


executive body to which we are referring was meeting exclusively in London and met on Saturday, the Minister could argue that it would not be necessary to admit the press because London does not have a Saturday evening paper. However, my area has two evening newspapers, and two on Saturday as well, with two sports editions to follow.
The exclusion of representatives of the Sandwell edition of the Express and Star and the Sandwell Evening Mail would not only be resented by the editors of the newspapers—and is, as I shall show—but would be a great disservice to the people of the borough. The people of the borough will be responsible through their rates, levied by the executive body, which the Minister will doubtless blithely describe, without any democratic say or any knowledge of what has taken place at meetings of the new authority, unless they bothered to turn up to the press conference. There they will be given glossy handouts, a cup of coffee and be sent on their way.

Mr. Beith: And told which paragraphs to read.

Mr. Snape: The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is correct.
Tonight, in the Sandwell Evening Mail, there is an interesting editorial. The editor, Mr. John Bradbury, has given me permission to quote from it. Unfortunately, he had to read it over the telephone, as a copy of the paper has not arrived within the precincts of the House. It says:
If the Government has its way the water workers will be employed by immensely powerful new authorities completely unaccountable to the public. The Bill … means that meetings will not be open to the press. The press is the representative of the public. Its presence ensures that there is some check on the activities of such bodies.
In the face of protests the Government has come up with a sham form of press representation. Press conferences after meetings. These will merely report what decisions have been taken and publicity will not influence those decisions.
The editorial goes on:
It is ironic"—
that is not a word I would use personally but I must quote my evening newspaper accurately—
that this shabby substitute is put forward by an administration supposedly devoted to the principle of open government.
7.30 pm
It goes on to repeat the speech made by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) back in 1960 to which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed has referred. I suppose one could argue that there is good reason for her change of heart. At that time, she was not Prime Minister. Now that she is, she knows what is good for us. However, she does not evidently know what is good for the editor of one of my local evening newspapers. The editorial goes on:
Yet her Government propose to put no such check"—
that is the check of democracy and accountability—
on water authorities. They will be able to levy rates and yet be unaccountable to ratepayers. There is still time for second thoughts.
I would have thought the prospects of a change of mind by the Minister were fairly minimal. I would have thought the prospect of the hon. Gentleman accepting this Sensible new clause was fairly slim. I know him moderately well and recognise that he thinks for himself. I hope that he will not merely read a brief containing all the excuses beloved of civil servants to show why the light of press

accountability should not shine on this executive body. Before making such a speech, if he intends to do so, the hon. Gentleman should know that he has not so far found any friends in the House. I do not believe that the House of Commons, with its belief in democracy, accountability and the right of the press to report meetings of public bodies, will accept the clause as it stands but will demand that the new clause should be passed.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) but the Minister will find that he has a friend on the Conservative Back Benches who wishes to support the decision taken by the Government. I have been a journalist. I have attended and reported council meetings. I am aware that there are occasions during council meetings when the press are asked to leave and dutifully troop out, returning when the council decides the moment when they can be allowed back. One can overstate the effectiveness of the press sitting in on meetings.
I have referred to council meetings. If the water authorities are to be accepted as excutive bodies, our thinking has to change accordingly. If they are executive bodies spending public money, so are nationalised industries. When they charge for water on a meter, are they levying a rate or simply charging for water? In the same way, nationalised industries charge for their services. The analogy can be drawn to the extent that water authorities came within the purview of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries of which I was a member. It seems to me to follow that we cannot accept a certain amount of press intervention for one executive body without applying the same condition for other publicly owned executive bodies. By the same token, if the water companies are not required to have the press at their board meetings, why should the water authorities, if they are executive bodies?
A further argument has to be advanced. Will an executive be able to do its job better, more frankly and more effectively and will it be able to discuss in greater detail and in total honesty all that needs to be discussed if it knows that the press is sitting at its elbow taking everything down? The water authorities will be much smaller. Their executive boards can be likened to a board of directors. The decisions of such a group of people will be more properly reached if they are fully discussed and put together rationally without the press actually being present at the discussion.
By offering the voluntary code of practice and by insisting upon press conferences at the end of board meetings and other meetings, we are enabling the presss to find out from those who run the authority the reasons for the decisions that they have reached. To hear Opposition Members, one would think that the press lacked the ability to discover what goes on behind the closed doors of all authorities. Yet, every day of the week, we can read about what happens in the Cabinet, in Government Departments, in the Labour party's private sanctums and in the alliance, among the friends of the alliance and the alliance itself. All that information is made available to us every day of the week. However, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) in particular tries to argue that if the press is not allowed to sit with the executive around the table it will not be able to inform the public about what the water authority is or is not doing, how it reached a decision and


the basis for that decision. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman is so naive. He is putting forward special pleading because he believes that through clause 3 he can embarrass the Government.

Mr. Denis Howell: As the Prime Minister herself has demonstrated at the Dispatch Box today, it will be easier for the press to know what has gone on in Cabinet and secret Select Committees than it will for the press to know what is happening in water authorities. The reason is simple. Everyone knows what is on the agenda of the Cabinet. Unless the chairman of a water authority is prepared to tell us, no one will know what is on the agenda of a water authority.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am not sure that I follow the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's comments. I cannot see how the press conference, which is part and parcel of the voluntary code, could take place without the press being aware of what has been discussed at the board meeting. In those terms alone, the press would have an agenda. No self-respecting journalist aware of a local problem will allow those who speak at a press conference to get away with it. I hope that the chairman and chief executive of the authority will be required to be present at such press conferences. I see those conferences as vital in achieving accountability, which I agree should be available to the press in relation to decisions.
When the proposals in the Bill were first announced to the House the statement was made by the present Secretary of State for the Environment. I asked if his statement meant that in the future water authorities would be accountable to this House on the Floor of the House, meaning that the Secretary of State would answer for them. My right hon. Friend replied that it did. That is accountability that did not exist before. The accountability that allows every hon. Member to question the Secretary of State together with the fact that the press will be able to take part in press conferences, where those making the decisions can be questioned, gives a new measure of accountability. It is sufficient accountability to make any ratepayer believe that he will be as well, if not better, informed than in the past.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: I trust that my hon. Friend has passed on that valuable information to the Table Office so that it will accept questions which until now it has been unable to accept.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that until the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, the Table Office does not need to take new instructions from anyone.
I read the Guild of British Newspaper Editors document with interest and some sympathy, and although my local editor has asked me to persuade the Government to think again about allowing the press into all the meetings of the water authorities, I cannot convince myself that that will make for a more accountable water industry than we have had in the past, nor that it will not create an inequality between those executive bodies running our water industry and the executive bodies that run other state-owned industries.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: We have heard a fascinating speech—the only speech supporting the Government, as I am sure the Minister will have noted. The speech was about the important presupposition that

henceforward we shall be able to table any and every parliamentary question that we want and get answers. We shall not be blocked at the Table Office. We shall not be blocked by Ministers saying that it is not their responsibility. We shall be able to ask these questions and get full and meaningful answers. That was the presupposition of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). I see the Minister nodding. Now he shakes his head. Now he has a look of uncertainty, even horror. I hope that that horror and uncertainty will find their way to the Back Benches, and that the hon. Member for Newbury will understand that his assumption is not shared by his Front Bench. We are not quite so certain whether we can ask all these questions and get the answers. In other words, the activities of water authorities will be kept from the public, and we shall continue to be unable to ask the questions in this place that we should be able to ask.
My constituents come to my surgeries week after week with problems about their water supply. They have a leak, or there is a problem with the water supply, sewerage, or something else. They tell me that they have been to the district councillor, who says that he cannot do anything about it. They have been to their county councillor, who tells them that the Gwynedd county council can do nothing. They tell me that they have tried to get at the water authority, but they cannot find the office. So they ask me to raise the matter in Parliament. We know the answer to that. We cannot raise the matter in Parliament. We are told that it is not a ministerial responsibility, that it is a matter for the nationalised industry, the board. We are told that these important matters, which are brought up in my surgeries week after week, will be discussed by the board behind closed doors, where no one can scrutinise what goes on. It is no wonder that there is frustration in Wales, and no doubt elsewhere, at the way in which the water industry has developed in recent years.
I would say to the hon. Member for Newbury that there is a massive difference between a press statement at the end of a meeting and someone sitting listening to the meeting. If the press statement is comprehensive and balanced, at the very best it reflects only what happened at the meeting. In all probability it will be less than that and will involve a weighting or trimming or will have a presentational aspect. So what comes out is not quite the same as what went on at the meeting.
Our friends in the press are left with only one option, and that is to nose around among members of the authority, employees, waste paper baskets, or whatever is available, to get a story. No doubt the story that goes out is unbalanced, not because of any fault on the part of the press but because they are not allowed access to the fundamental information.
Like the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), I was a member of a local authority before coming to this place. That was before reorganisation. I know that from time to time sensitive decisions are taken in local authorities, and that when that happens the press are asked either to go out or not to report what they hear for five minutes, or perhaps half an hour. Invariably, the press cooperate, and there is no doubt that the press would cooperate in the same way when sensitive decisions are taken in the water industry.
As in local government, discussions in the water industry will take place outside formal meetings. There will be discussions of technical matters at managerial


level, where the press are not involved. So some of the more sensitive matters are decided some time before the final decisions are taken. That does not stop discussion. It does not paralyse the water industry to think about the important issues that face it. Those issues are important and are becoming increasingly important. For example, the escalating costs of replacing sewers will involve community after community in the coming months and years, and there will be massive decisions of priority in public expenditure. Decisions will have to be made to carry out one project and reject another, and those decisions will affect the communities involved, where every house will be affected by those decisions. So the communities should know what is going on in their name.
7.45 pm
I believe that the authorities should be directly elected. I was interested to hear what the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said, although I do not remember getting his support when the Wales Bill and the Scotland Bill went through Parliament. However, we regarded that as a method of getting democratic control of the water authorities and others.
The water authority, in particular, needs democratic control and scrutiny because, as has been said, it has a tax-raising power. That is the difference between this industry and other nationalised industries. Other nationalised industries charge a price in relation to the commodity they sell and the volume of the commodity they sell. In this case, a rate is charged. Industrial and commercial consumers may have a metered consumption, but, for the vast majority of citizens in each water authority it is a rate, and that rate is not related to the use of the commodity, but to the rateable value of the property in which they live.
There is a small shop in my constituency, which I have mentioned before. It has a wash basin and a toilet, and it was paying £800 a year in water rates. It was a scandal. That shop has a direct interest in the decisions that are taken, and it should know what is going on within the walls of the water authorities.
There are arguments between water authorities. There was the recent one between the Welsh water authority and the Severn-Trent water authority. The position is unsatisfactory for Wales, because our rate in the pound is twice that in the Severn-Trent area. The final decision was taken at ministerial level, and we had to wait 15 months for it. If the water authority were more open, I am sure that there would have been greater pressure to ensure an earlier and a better decision.
There have been examples in Wales where the press has done good service for the water industry. The press found that the Severn-Trent water authority was using massive assets in Wales and paying virtually no rent at all. The press reported that, and the issue came under public scrutiny. Whatever the merits of the issue, it was the press who projected it in such a way that people in local government and in Parliament could pursue the matter.
In my view, there is an overwhelming case for the press to be allowed in to report the activities of the water authorities. There is a danger of manipulation of the press. I have a nasty suspicion that what we heard earlier today in the statement on the Falklands was a form of manipulation of the press, making sure that the story put forward was the one that was wanted by the Executive. I

have a feeling that, in the case of the tragic shootings that we heard about in Kensington earlier this week, there was an attempt to manipulate the press to make sure that the story was projected in the way that the authorities wanted. Equally, I suspect that shutting the press out of water authority meetings is another attempt to ensure that what is projected is what is wanted by the establishment, and not necessarily what is in the interests of the people they serve.
I beg the Government to look again at the matter. If we in this Chamber cannot get the change that is needed by means of this new clause, I hope that the other place will achieve what we cannot do and ensure that there is a safeguard for the people.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I think that since 1973, when the water boards were set up, Members of Parliament on both sides of the House have received more complaints about the cost of water. There are possibly two reasons for this. First, water is now charged separately and is no longer a part of the rates. Secondly, the cost of water has increased and there is no scope for metering. The charge is related entirely to rateable value.
I can see no reason why there should not be scrutiny of what is spent. It is clear that there is public anxiety. It is no good comparing the water industry with the gas industry. One does not have to have gas but it is necessary to have water. Those who do not have main drainage are always involved in the argument about sewerage connection. We know that there is much dissatisfaction on that score.
What control have ratepayers over the scale of the charge which is levied? The answer is "None". We are faced with a clear problem because the water authorities are not accountable to ratepayers. However, I believe that they must be accountable to Parliament. When the Post Office was accountable to Parliament, there were so many small issues brought before it that in the end parliamentary control was removed for various reasons. We are dealing now with another nominated body which is levying tax. Surely the old maxim "No taxation without representation" is as applicable to water as to anything else. If the water industry is compared with other nationalised industries, I say that the other industries should be subject to more scrutiny than they are at present.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: There is a strange inconsistency in the Government's position which is being revealed as the debate progresses. It should be remembered that the Prime Minister promised during the 1979 general election that there would be more open government. We are not getting that open government. In the clause which deals with access by the press to meetings of water authorities, we are being given closed government.
This is a contentious issue which we debated at great length in Committee. Following the Minister's comments, some of us were led to believe that the Government might be more forthcoming than they have been. There were representatives of the media who for 10 days or two weeks felt that the Government, because of what they had heard within their profession, were possibly going to give way. However, there has been no flexibility apart from the introduction of a code of practice, which has been described by the Guild of British Newspaper Editors as
a shabby substitute for a legally established right.


I believe that the House will be grateful to Conservative Members who have expressed dissent from the Government's decision. I am glad to note that they will be joining the Opposition in voting against the Government. There must be many of their hon. Friends who think in a similar way. If there were to be a real and objective debate on this issue, I am convinced that there would be a majority against the Government. There will be Conservative Members supporting the Government tonight who have not fully considered the issue and who have ignored the representations made to them, which have also been made to the Minister. In his short intervention the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Spence) said that the Minister had a mailbag from the media within his constituency and from other constituencies in which the strongest representations are made against the Government's position.
I shall refer to correspondence that I have received since the debates that took place in Committee from representatives of the media. I shall draw on a letter that was written by the North-Western Evening Mail, which serves a part of my county of Cumbria. The editor, Mr. Tom Welsh, states:
Can I mention again the argument that the press has made little use of its right of access to water authorities in the past? Whether this is true of the county as a whole I do not know but it is certainly untrue in the case of the Evening Mail. The North West water authority's meetings at Warrington discussed many important issues affecting my readers. These include the ever increasing cost to consumers, the region's chronic crisis over supply, the construction of the new pipeline from Hawes water, the deterioration of the Victorian sewerage system and the serious pollution around our coast"—
that is the coast of Cumbria. He continues:
Under the 1960s Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act the press has the right to receive committee documents relating to those meetings to which we have access and guidance from the Ministry of the Environment, and under the administrations of both political hues it has been agreed that this material should reach the press in adequate time to publish it, so that members of the public affected by decisions of the various authorities have the chance to make their views felt. In many cases our articles have been based on such documents rather than attendance at the meetings. In future we shall not receive those documents and therefore shall be unable to warn our readers about matters which may have the greatest significance for them.
That is a denial and betrayal of democratic principles and the Minister and his friends should feel ashamed of themselves for bringing such a proposition before the House.
In a letter to a number of hon. Members dated 11 January, the Guild of British Newspaper Editors replied to a point made by the Minister in Committee and stated:
Water authorities, unlike the Gas and Electricity Boards, are rate levying bodies. We believe that they should therefore be directly accountable to the public whose money they are spending.
Again, the Minister rejects that argument. In doing so he betrays democracy on an essential principle. I shall omit the references that the guild makes to the Prime Minister's statements in the early 1960s. They have been well rehearsed this evening and it is for the right hon. Lady to defend the clear inconsistency in her position. However, it continues:
We are not impressed by the argument that the press should not attend because the new Water Authorities will be smaller than at present.
What a spurious argument. The guild adds:
The Regional and District Health Authorities are of the same size and the press are admitted to their meetings. In any event

the number of people seated round a table cannot seriously be thought to be so crucial that a long-established legal right should be removed at a stroke.
How right it is in making that statement. What does it matter how large the body is? What matters is how important the decisions are that are being taken and to what extent they effect the constituents of all hon. Members. The guild argues that the
proposed code of practice would be wholly unsatisfactory. It would apparently require there to be press conferences after all board or main committee meetings. This would mean that the press would be informed only of actual decisions taken and would be unable to report the way in which such decisions were reached. The proposal has been put forward as if press conferences would be something new which, of course, is not the case.
Later it states:
We do not accept that admission to the meetings of the proposed consumer councils or admission to the meetings of the full Authority where there are special circumstances, whatever these may be, will be sufficient to ensure that the public are informed about what the Water Authorities are doing.
There have been perhaps thousands of pieces of correspondence that have come before hon. Members. We could have the Benches full of hon. Members on both sides of the House quoting their letters from editors, from newspapers, from journalists and from all organisations that will be affected by the Government's stupid decision.
8 pm
I shall give some more quotations. The Press Gazette Group is a London newspaper group. The editor, Mr. Bill Field, writes:
It seems to me that the Bill represents another threat to the ability of newspapers to freely report matters of public interest".
In its original correspondence to me, the North-West Evening Mail said:
The exclusion of the press would mean that much less information would be available to the public about the operation of a vital public service. Water charges have become a highly controversial subject and now it seems that important decisions affecting the public are to be reached behind closed doors.
The Government's proposal is totally at variance with every commitment and promise that they made at the general election. They promised open government. This is closed government. The British people do not want it. The Government should recognise that and remove this idiotic proposition from the Bill.
The Cumbrian Newspapers Group comments:
You must be aware that there is strong public feeling about water boards. For decisions about this public service to be taken in secret will only fuel controversy and criticism.
That is a small portion of the views expressed to my hon. Friends about the nonsense of the Government's position. In correspondence to me dated 18 January, the Guild of British Newspaper Editors asked four crucial questions, to which I ask the Minister to address himself when he replies to the debate. Those questions were:
Will the Water Authorities have the discretion as to what matters are put before the consultative committees or will every issue for decision by the Authority also be considered by the relevant consultative committee? Will such matters always be put to the committees before the relevant decision is taken or will there be occasions on which the Authorities will only in fact make a formal reference after decisions have been made but before their announcement? Will the committees have available the full documentation and information on which the Boards themselves will take decisions on any matter? Will the committees have powers to request and receive any papers and documents they wish from the authorities?


The guild asked those questions because they are crucial and in the public interest. The Minister should reply to them all. I shall persist in intervening during his reply until we receive clear undertakings on each count.
There is the issue of what the public will no longer see, hear or know until the decisions have been taken by the water authorities. My constituency is in a part of the country in which every endeavour, manufacturing and recreational—whether angling or paper making—is directly related to the water industry and water amenities. In the county of Cumbria more bodies than in other parts of the country have a direct interest in what is going on in the water authority. Historically, they have been able to look to the local media to see the process of decision-making and to make their comments to whatever authority they wanted. They do not have confidence in the consultative arrangements that the Minister provides for in his amendment. They feel strongly that the Government are removing precious historic rights that they believe are important if they are to carry out their functions. They believe that the media should have access to the water authorities. They look to the Government to ensure that changes are made, even as late as Lords amendments, to secure what they believe, I believe and the majority of the House would believe if all hon. Members were free to vote as they wished, to be the public interest.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: We all accept that information is a vital part of our democratic system. When information is difficult to get at Government level, it does not inspire confidence when such information is made more difficult to obtain from a quango such as the water authorities. That is deeply worrying to the people.
I shall give two examples showing how difficult and evasive the Government have been, not with regard to the Franks committee about which we heard today, but with regard to the gathering of information. When my hon. Friend the Member for Carmathen (Dr. Thomas) tried to ascertain what was the use of the dioxin-carrying weedkiller 2,4,5,T, on a number of occasions questions were asked of different Departments. Each reply stated that only 3 tonnes of that weedkiller were used in the United Kingdom. When my hon. Friend asked how much of that weedkiller was imported to the United Kingdom the answer was that such information is not separately distinguished in "British Overseas Trade Statistics". That answer did not say that such figures are available from Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. In 1980, 58 tonnes of 2, 4, 5, T were imported into the United Kingdom. Such evasion does not give us confidence that the information that the Government are giving us is either accurate or up-to-date. It seems to be deliberately evasive.
My second example is about the Armitage report on transport. It recommended that fuel injection equipment in heavy lorries should be made tamper proof in line with regulations in other countries. When I asked the Secretary of State for Transport which countries required such tamper-proof equipment to be fitted, I received the following answer from the Under-Secretary:
As far as I am aware, only Sweden has a requirement intended to reduce the possibility of tampering with fuel injection equipment."—[Official Report, December 1982; Vol. 33, c. 461.]
Further inquiries on my part to the Automobile Association led to the information that Sweden,

Switzerland and Czechoslovakia have such equipment. The answer by the Minister had been prefaced by the evasive phrase:
As far as I am aware".
Therefore the Department of Transport is in no position to find out where in the world those devices are fitted, but the Automobile Association can find it out quickly.
I shall refer now to information about the water industry and the position in the Principality. The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs has beeen examining it recently. While the people of Wales anxiously await the report of the Committee, which has been delayed for a number of reasons, the evidence of that Committee has been published. It is most informative. Of all the witnesses who came before the Select Committee only the Welsh CBI opposed the continued right of public access to water authority meetings.
It is interesting that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts), defended that right when he gave evidence to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs on 2 December 1981. He is well versed in the problems of water in Wales and stated in his evidence:
I do not want to draw analogies but there are analogies in other services where they operate very efficiently. Nevertheless they hold their meetings in public. I do not really see the need for privacy in decision making as overriding the need for effective action as the Authority sees it.
I fully endorse that and I am sure that the people of Wales also support the view so cogently put by the Under-Secretary. I sincerely hope that the Government's retrograde step in seeking to limit press access will be reversed today. So far, only one Conservative Member has befriended the Government on this.
The headquarters of the Welsh water authority is in Brecon, so it is not an easy journey from, say, Rhossili in the western part of my constituency to see the authority performing its decision-making role. The journey will be virtually impossible by public transport when the full effects of the Government's cut in rate support grant have worked through the local authorities, with reductions in bus subsidies and consequent cuts in services, and the Gower pony will be just about defunct.
The press is a vital instrument of information transfer when the senility of public transport in rural areas is aided by the Government and the Commissioner for Local Administration may no longer investigate cases of maladministration alleged to have been committed by water authorities. With the changes proposed by the Government in the Bill, it would seem sensible to establish a new ombudsman with substantial powers which are currently denied to the Commissioner for Local Administration.
Under the agency agreements between water authorities and local authorities, sewerage functions are discharged by district councils. As I said in the Standing Committee—and I shall continue to pursue this until the problem is solved—a number of my constituents in Sybil street and Hebron road in Clydach live in daily fear that their kitchens and living rooms may at any time once again be flooded with raw human sewage. Even in the tourist haven of Oxwich my constituents face a similar problem.
The Welsh water authority decides the priorities of sewerage schemes as between the conflicting claims—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he must relate his remarks to the admission of the press to water authority meetings.

Mr. Wardell: I was just coming to that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Welsh water authority and other water authorities have an agency agreement with regard to the discharge of sewerage functions. The press can draw attention to problems of the kind that I have described throughout Wales and in other areas.
It is important to remember that we are dealing with a rate levying authority whose members will henceforth be nominated exclusively by Ministers. It will handle large sums of public money but will be accountable only to itself, without a press presence at its meetings.
The retrograde nature of this was highlighted in the Western Mail—the national newspaper of Wales—on 13 July, with the following headline:
Welsh Water Authority dry up in secret meetings".
If the Western Mail believed that the Welsh water authority was drying up last July, permanent aridity of information will rapidly become the norm if the Government have their way on this crucial issue.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Like other Opposition Members, I support new clause 3 and the need to allow the press to attend the meetings of the new water authorities.
When I talk to my constituents, when canvassing and at other times, I find that many of them, sadly, take the somewhat cynical view that politicians in general say one thing and do another. The Government's attitude to the new clause neatly illustrates that. Governments of all political persuasions in this country have supported the belief that there should be far more freedom of information and that the public should have greater rights of access to the information on which decisions are made. Yet in cases in which the Government could actually do something about that this is what happens. The Government say that they are not prepared to allow the press into meetings to report what is being done on behalf and with the money of the people of this country. That is deplorable.
The Government offer only two possible reasons. First, they argue that the press do not attend very regularly now. Secondly, they make comparisons with other nationalised industries. It is extremely important that we enjoy rights even if we do not always exercise them. The Stockport Express and the Stockport Area Messenger, for example, certainly cannot afford to send a reporter to every meeting of the North-West water authority, but when they know that a problem will be discussed that is of particular interest to the people of Stockport they need the right to have somebody at the meeting to report what is said and to make it clear to the people of Stockport that their views are being put, whether by elected representatives as in the past or by the new appointees, so that they can exert an influence and, if necessary, political pressure to ensure that the people of the area have a fair deal from the water authority. Nothing will convince people unless they know that somebody can attend the meeting and actually hear the views put. That is extremely important. Of course, there will be many occasions on which local newspapers will not send reporters. Nevertheless, they should enjoy the right to do so if they wish.
The Government's other argument is that water authorities should be treated like other nationalised industries, which do not have to put up with the press at their meetings.
Many people believe in the importance of freedom of information. We should examine ways of opening up many nationalised industries to more public scrutiny and more, rather than less, public access to information.
I am fully aware that some industries are competing with foreign competitors. There is the argument about trade secrets and the problem that public access would have with regard to foreign competition. However, apart from matters that may be confidential perhaps because they are of a personal type about an employee—which is already covered by existing legislation—there is no information involved in water authority meetings which is inappropriate for public debate.
The only way to achieve proper and informed public debate is to ensure that meetings are reported in the media and that the issues are discussed. When I travel round my constituency, one of the bodies that comes in for most criticism is the North-West water authority. One reason is that my constituents know little about it. That has much to do with the way in which the authority was set up. The only way to break down that barrier is to encourage people to attend its meetings.
The Government claim that the new procedure will be streamlined and that there is much more chance that the press will report the issues. As a result, the public will be better informed about the problems that face the water industry and they will be happier to pay their water rates if they know the money is being spent wisely and there is public discussion of the priorities. If water authorities' affairs are carried on behind closed doors, people will be more cynical about authorities and will increasingly demand that water authorities be democratically controlled. The sooner that happens the better, but meanwhile, there should be media access to all meetings.

Mr. Ogden: I agree with the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) in one regard only—I support new clause 3. I disagree with him about the level of criticism of the North-West water authority. During the present Parliament I have received only two complaints from constituents about the activities of that authority. Both constituents are vocal and know where to find their Member of Parliament. That puts what the hon. Gentleman said into perspective.
I should like to have pursued the points that the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) raised about the accessibility of the Welsh water authority from the wilder parts of Brecon and Clydach. I congratulate him on making a lucid, cogent, competent and extensive Second Reading speech in a discussion on one amendment. I enjoyed his speech. I hope that he is always as successful as he was tonight.
The Minister is smiling. I should not like to wipe the smile off his face. Perhaps he would like to intervene later to clear up a matter that was raised by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). I normally admire his speeches. However, he confused some of his arguments a little today. He confused those authorities such as gas, electricity and coal that charge for services with those that charge a rate.
Carried to its logical conclusion, the argument of the hon. Member for Newbury is that it is not necessary for


the press to attend water authority meetings because Members of Parliament will be able to safeguard their constituents' interests by asking the relevant Minister questions in the House. A logical development of that argument is that we might as well close down Hansard, the BBC's recording of the House and press coverage of the House. That is ridiculous. I read the Sunday newspapers to find out what is happening here. Nevertheless, what questions will I and other Members be able to ask the relevant Minister, whether he be from the Department of Trade, the Department of the Environment or the Welsh Office? What questions will hon. Members be able to get through the Table Office? What detailed questions will hon. Members be able to table about the day-to-day activities about roads, streets and sewerage charges? We will want to be able to ask more than merely who is the chairman or vice-chairman of an authority and what costs are involved. What questions will the relevant Minister and his colleagues be able to answer? If the Minister wants to take that point up now I shall gladly give way. I hope that he will answer that point before the end of the debate.
The Minister will remember that, in Committee, we debated press access. With his usual charm, the Minister gave us a whole host of things about press access to consumer councils. We were talking not about press access to proposed consumer councils, but press access to water authority meetings. We had hoped that in the few weeks since then, some arrangements would have been made between the newspaper fraternity—the Guild of British Newspaper Editors—and the Ministry. That has clearly been rejected. A guild press release has already been referred to. It said of the proposals:
The Guild regards this as a shabby substitute for a legally established right of access.
It continued:
In the view of the Guild the Government's admission that there might be circumstances in which the presence of the press might be justified shows that to exclude the press and public from the meetings of the rate levying authorities is a retrograde and dangerous precedent.
Those are fairly powerful criticisms from a body that relies considerably on the good will of Government to perform its news collecting service.
Who first suggested that the press should be excluded from the meetings of the new water authorities? Was it a ministerial idea? Did the proposal come from the water authorities? If so, from which authorities? It has always been assumed, although it has never been stated in debate, that the present proposal is being presented to the House by the water authorities through the Government. The unspoken suggestion is that the proposal is being made so that water authorities can get on with their business quietly and privately. It is intended that they will be able to slip measures through without anyone knowing about them. That conclusion may be incorrect, but any competent, effective and efficient water authority such as the one that we have in the north-west, in spite of occassional criticisms of it, should be more than willing for members of the press to attend their formal meetings. It should not be content merely with a face-saving press conference. Water authorities should be ready, able and willing to use the press to get the good news over. To deny access to the press is to deny water authorities a channel of communication that they should accept. I hope that the Minister will answer my questions even though his speech

may have been prepared. Who suggested that the press be excluded—the Government or the authorities? If it was the water authorities, which ones did so? Secondly, what questions will hon. Members be able to ask in the House?
Will the Minister examine the matter? Press access has done no harm and much good. The proposal places the new authorities under some doubt from the start. It clouds their initiative and their style. It is a handicap that they must overcome.

Mr. Giles Shaw: There can be no doubt that the issue of press access has created the greatest degree of controversy during the passage of the Bill. The press has been effective in alerting hon. Members about its anxieties. However, we must note its absence from the Press Gallery—but perhaps it is only a paper tiger.
The main issues in the debate stem in part from misunderstanding and in part from genuine concern. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said that the Bill would result in the elimination of local authority representation on the new-style boards. That is not the case. There will be at least two representatives in each of the water authorities. The most significant part of the Bill is the substantial change in local authority representation, from being the majority in large organisations—boards of 62, 47 or 35—to two persons on a board of nine or 15.

Mr. Denis Howell: It is a question not of numbers, but of substance. The present local authority members are appointed by local authorities and, through them, have a degree of accountability to the ratepayers.
I am pleased to see the Secretary of State in the Chamber. I offer him my congratulations on his preferment. I am sure that he will wish to appoint people with experience in local government, but they will not be accountable to local government. That is a substantial change.

Mr. Shaw: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point. On reflection, he must recognise that even under the existing regime the composition of a water authority does not include representatives from all local authorities within its region.
The character of the new authorities is fundamentally different from the local authority majority structure that it will replace. That, above all else, is the most important reason why the review of press access resulted in the decision that it was no longer appropriate. We must bear in mind that the Bill will move the character of the authorities away from the local authority, open forum type meeting to an executive style.

Mr. Spence: In whose opinion was press access not appropriate to the new authorities? Is that the Government's opinion, the opinion of the administrators or the Civil Service? What about the consumers whom we represent? Have they been consulted?

Mr. Shaw: It is the Government's opinion that that is the right decision to make, and it is for the House to determine whether that should be so. That is why we are debating the matter. I shall seek to justify that. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission recommended that there should be a fundamental restructuring of the authorities. It was critical of the scale of authorities, of the


management structure within them—it examined the Severn-Trent authority—of the communication and control problems and of the large consumption of time in the administration of the committee system which, ultimately, produced a 47-man authority. An independent third party important investigation was carried out and the advice was that changes in structure should be considered. Hon. Members have not denied the general feeling on both sides of the House that water authorities have not earned the accolade of great achievement that we wish them to earn. Therefore, change is desirable.
The second problem is whether the proposals are a fundamental denial of the rights of the public, the water consumer, Members of Parliament and those who seek to scrutinise public bodies, which should be resisted à l'outrance—as, I suspect, the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) would have us do. Undoubtedly that would be the case were we proposing total exclusion while not seeking to offer any public scrutiny of water authorities or their activities.

Dr. Glyn: My hon. Friend specifically mentioned that Members of Parliament would not be allowed to ask the Minister specific questions in Parliament on all aspects of the water authority. Will he enlarge on that, as many hon. Members have mentioned that point?

Mr. Shaw: I shall reply to that point in a moment. Total exclusion of the press has been implied by many hon. Members. They have questioned how that relates to public scrutiny.
The regional water authorities, will still be subject to an immense range of public scrutiny. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission has already been used and, under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's leadership, will continue to be used as a major vehicle of public examination.
The report and accounts of the water authorities, laid before the House in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, will be displayed to show every aspect of the water authorities' activities, performance aims, investment appraisal, manpower trends and all the other matters that one would wish a publicly accountable body to show in public.
It will still be possible to ask a wide range of questions of Ministers who are accountable to the House for the ways in which the water authorities operate. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden), my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) will be interested in the precise nature of those ways. As you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know better than I, the policy for the acceptance of questions must be determined by the Chair. The decision that we have reached now will not be changed by the Bill's provisions. Presently, Ministers are prepared to answer questions on a wide range of matters, such as broad policy issues, charging policies, investment policies, manpower, and other matters relating to water authorities. Those are currently available for scrutiny through the parliamentary questions procedure. That will remain the case.
If it is believed that this width of questioning is inadequate, I give an undertaking to the House, subject to the agreement of the Table Office, that we shall extend it. The House has a right to know what the water authorities are doing in relation to their reports.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister of State to make such a statement?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): I have heard nothing out of order from the Minister.

Mr. Shaw: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I accept that the House must be satisfied that the questioning of water authorities on the report and accounts laid—the information that is provided—is sufficient for my right hon. Friend and me fully to discharge our ministerial obligations.

Mr. Beith: I appreciate that the Minister is trying to be helpful to the House, but if the Bill makes no changes in the areas in which Ministers are subject to parliamentary questioning, it follows that there can have been no change in the relationship of power between Ministers and the water authorities. Otherwise, there would have been implications for parliamentary questions. In what sense has the character of the water authorities changed? I do not mean their style or how many members they have, but their range of responsibilities. In what sense have they become executive bodies in a way that they were not previously?

Mr. Shaw: That will largely depend on how the authorities operate under the powers contained in the Bill. I remind the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that under the Bill's provisions, every member of the water authority is appointed by the Minister concerned. There will be total ministerial responsibility for appointments, which is rather important.
It is already known that the Government are involved in many aspects of water authority capital expenditure and external financing limits. We must then ask ourselves whether there will be sufficient access and opportunity for the media and for the public in the water authority areas.
A point that we made in Committee about the availability of information to the press won considerable ill-will from both hon. Members and gentlemen of the press. It is not a shabby substitute to increase such information.
The House must understand that the press is admitted by statute to about four, five or six water authority meetings a year. With the new proceedings, the fact that the boards are smaller should enable water authorities to meet more frequently and should certainly enable a substantial reduction in the committee structure that is so prevalent at the moment. At each meeting the press will be informed of the matters that are to be discussed and the water authorities will be available afterwards at a press conference to answer questions about the meeting. Press conferences are not usual in all water authorities, but the opportunity to question those who have taken decisions at meetings will be increased modestly.
The second range of new access provisions—the code of practice—has been called a shabby substitute. The code of practice will be drawn up between the chairmen of the regional water authorities and the Guild of British Newspaper Editors. I hope that the guild will recognise that as an opportunity to determine, with the chairmen, the rules under which the press wishes to have access to water authority information. I hope that the press will take advantage of that proposal and that the chairmen and the guild can arrange a code of practice.
The availability of information at consultative committee meetings will be substantial. I made it clear to the Committee, and I make it clear to the House now, that the guidelines will show that the consultative committees should have the opportunity to probe into anything that they consider appropriate. They will have information about charging policies before charges are made and they can ask questions about and discuss investment policy before investment decisions are made. It is important that they have access to information that is sufficient correctly to discharge their obligations. The guidelines must be drawn up with the fundamental objective of exposing the water authorities' activities to public and press scrutiny.
I add to that the fact that the consultative committees will meet, for example, not in the head office at Warrington, which is many miles from Carlisle in the North-West regional water authority, but in every division of every regional water authority several times a year. Thus, an evening paper published in Lincoln need not send a representative to Huntingdon for meetings that occur five times a year, but can become involved in what affects the local services of the water authority in Lincoln. That is a substantial advantage to the public and the press. I will not accept, either from my hon. Friends or from Opposition Members, the allegation that we are shutting the book and preventing water authorities from offering their activities for scrutiny by the public and the press.
Hon. Members could say "But they may not take advantage of it". They may say that the statutory right to attend five or six meetings a year, which the press currently enjoys, will cease. That statutory right will cease, just as local authority membership of water authorities—which at the moment is a majority in each authority—will also cease when the Bill is passed. The two factors ran hand in hand and were both part of local authority structure and of the fact that local authority meetings were open to the press. However, it is not sufficient to say that water authorities are only rate-levying or tax-levying bodies. It is true that they charge and that domestic charges are largely based on rateable values. I regret that fact in many respects.
We have tried to increase the availability of metering. Had the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) been here, I should have told him that the shop that pays an £800 water bill would benefit from a metering system, if it is to be made available by the Welsh water authority. However, the main objective of the water authority is to discharge statutory functions and to ensure that the consumers of its services, whether domestic or commercial—commercial users account for nearly half the revenue of the water authorities—receive fair, full and effective service. That is what the new proposals in the Bill are designed to achieve. The press will have substantial access to the water authority. The public will have substantially more access to the water authority. This House will have as much access as it now has, and probably more, as Ministers will in a sense be more responsible through their appointments for the operation of water authorities and will seek to discharge those responsibilities to this House.
The group of amendments consists of the new clause and a Government amendment. The Government wish to make it clear that the right of access under the 1960 legislation is indeed affected by the Bill. I commend that

amendment to the House. The new clause should be resisted on the ground that I trust I have persuasively put forward.

Mr. Alec Jones: The Minister's reply has been the most insensitive reply that I have heard either in Committee or during this debate. I believe that the Government will regret their decision because it is unwise, insensitive and out of tune with the needs of the people. New clause 3 would entrench the existing position of the press. It would not increase that position but merely preserve it as it is now and help to preserve the rights of people as they are now. Amendment No. 31, which the Minister is supporting, is a denial of existing rights to the press and through it to the people of this country.
It is significant that only one speech has been heard in support of the Government. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) wishes to change his point of view after hearing the Minister's reply on whether water authorities are becoming more answerable.
The Minister said that the position had not been changed by the Bill. If that is the case, any hope we have of tabling parliamentary questions will be as hopeless in the future as it is now. Nothing will have been changed on that score. It is remarkable that the Government are pushing this amendment through. They have traditionally talked about open government. The speech of the Prime Minister has been quoted on so many occasions that I do not propose to repeat it, but bearing in mind what she said, I should have thought that Conservative Members would be voting with the Prime Minister and the Opposition for new clause 3 this evening.
As to the decision to refuse to allow the press to attend meetings of the water authority, did that suggestion emanate from Government quarters or from water authority quarters? The argument is that it has been necessary to do this because the character of the water authority is now fundamentally different. The only real difference is the size. The new water authorities will have to carry out exactly the same functions, and will have exactly the same powers, as the water authorities today. If size is an argument, it is surely a nonsensical argument when many organisations in this country are of the same or smaller size as the new water authorities that do in fact admit the press with no adverse effects upon their operations. In Welsh terms there is the Land Authority for Wales and there are regional health authorities in England and other health authorities.
It has been argued that the new water authority may become more executive in character. As my right hon. Friend said at the beginning of this debate, many matters of considerable public importance will be dealt with by the new water authorities irrespective of their size, planning, prices, abuses or misuses of power, health, standards, wages and a wide range of other matters. The public has a right to the earliest knowledge about those matters. It has a right to know before the final decision is taken. It is no good holding a press conference after the decision has been taken. It is crucial that the press know so that they can inform the public before any decisions are taken.
The Minister tried to sell us his new code of practice. Far from criticising him, I imagine that the Guild of British Newspaper Editors would have offered him its badge of honour. Does the Minister really believe that the Guild of


British Newspaper Editors is so foolish, ignorant and dull that it does not appreciate this new extension of power which the Minister suggests he is offering? The truth is the very opposite. If we deny the press the right to attend water authority meetings where the crucial decisions are taken, it is no substitute to say, "But you can go to the consumer councils", because the councils are not decision-making bodies.
The code of practice also suggests that the press may be invited to attend certain water authority meetings. Which? Will they be invited to any meeting that is likely to be embarrassing to the water authority? I do not believe so. The press will be invited only to those meetings that suit the purpose of the water authority, not the interests of the general public.

Mr. Denis Howell: The Christmas meetings.

Mr. Jones: Exactly.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Did my right hon. Friend note that the Minister refused to reply to the four questions put by the Guild of British Newspaper Editors about its relationship with the water authorities? Will he press the Minister, even now, to answer those important questions?

Mr. Jones: The points contained in the letter of the Guild of British Newspaper Editors have been spelt out at considerable length. I have referred to some of them. In fact, the Minister's contention that amendment No. 31 increases the availability of information does not stand up to examination. The Bill will create 10 powerful super-quangos. If the public is to be protected against those organisations, we must ensure that press involvement is extended rather than diminished.
This House has a long tradition of concern for democracy, but we cannot have an effective democracy unless at the same time we have a well-informed democracy. That is what this issue is all about. New clause 3, although dealing with the freedom of the press, deals equally with the rights of the individual. If we support the idea of a well-informed democracy, we must recognise that that cannot be achieved without a well-informed press.
I hope that all hon. Members will vote for the new clause, including those Conservative Members who spoke against the Government's proposal. Above all else, if this House fails in its duty tonight, I hope that the other place will seek to correct the error of our ways.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 273.

Division No. 42
8.53 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Adams, Allen
Buchan, Norman


Allaun, Frank
Callaghan, Rt Hon J.


Alton, David
Campbell, Ian


Anderson, Donald
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Canavan, Dennis


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cant, R. B.


Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Beith, A. J.
Clarke, Thomas (C'b'dge, A'rie)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cohen, Stanley


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Conlan, Bernard


Bottomley, Rt Hon A. (M'b'ro)
Cook, Robin F.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cowans, Harry


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Crawshaw, Richard


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Crowther, Stan





Cryer, Bob
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McElhone, Mrs Helen


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Davidson, Arthur
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
McKelvey, William


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
McWilliam, John


Deakins, Eric
Marks, Kenneth


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dixon, Donald
Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)


Dobson, Frank
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dormand, Jack
Maxton, John


Dunnett, Jack
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Maynard, Miss Joan


Eastham, Ken
Meacher, Michael


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Mikardo, Ian


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


English, Michael
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Evans, John (Newton)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Ewing, Harry
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Faulds, Andrew
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Field, Frank
Newens, Stanley


Fitch, Alan
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Flannery, Martin
Ogden, Eric


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
O'Halloran, Michael


Ford, Ben
O'Neill, Martin


Forrester, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foster, Derek
Palmer, Arthur


Foulkes, George
Park, George


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Parker, John


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Parry, Robert


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Pavitt, Laurie


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Pendry, Tom


George, Bruce
Penhaligon, David


Golding, John
Pitt, William Henry


Gourlay, Harry
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Graham, Ted
Prescott, John


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Hardy, Peter
Race, Reg


Harman, Harriet (Peckham)
Radice, Giles


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Haynes, Frank
Richardson, Jo


Heffer, Eric S.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Home Robertson, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Homewood, William
Robertson, George


Hooley, Frank
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Howell, Rt Hon D.
Rooker, J. W.


Howells, Geraint
Roper, John


Hoyle, Douglas
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Huckfield, Les
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Ryman, John


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sandelson, Neville


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Sever, John


Janner, Hon Greville
Sheerman, Barry


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)
Short, Mrs Renée


John, Brynmor
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Silverman, Julius


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Skinner, Dennis


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Snape, Peter


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Soley, Clive


Kerr, Russell
Spearing, Nigel


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Spence, John


Lambie, David
Spriggs, Leslie


Lamond, James
Stallard, A. W.


Leadbitter, Ted
Stoddart, David


Leighton, Ronald
Stott, Roger


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Strang, Gavin


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Straw, Jack


Litherland, Robert
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


McCartney, Hugh
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)






Tilley, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Tinn, James
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Torney, Tom
Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)


Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)


Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Wainwright, R. (Colne V)
Winnick, David


Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)
Woodall, Alec


Wardell, Gareth
Woolmer, Kenneth


Weetch, Ken
Wright, Sheila


Wellbeloved, James
Young, David (Bolton E)


Welsh, Michael



White, Frank R.
Tellers for the Ayes:


White, J. (G'gow Pollok)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Whitehead, Phillip
Mr. George Morton.


Whitlock, William





NOES


Adley, Robert
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Alexander, Richard
Durant, Tony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Dykes, Hugh


Ancram, Michael
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Arnold, Tom
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Aspinwall, Jack
Eggar, Tim


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)
Elliott, Sir William


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Emery, Sir Peter


Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)
Eyre, Reginald


Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell


Banks, Robert
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Farr, John


Bendall, Vivian
Fell, Sir Anthony


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Berry, Hon Anthony
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Best, Keith
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fookes, Miss Janet


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fox, Marcus


Blackburn, John
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Blaker, Peter
Gardner, Sir Edward


Body, Richard
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Glyn, Dr Alan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodlad, Alastair


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Gow, Ian


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Grant, Sir Anthony


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gray, Rt Hon Hamish


Bright, Graham
Greenway, Harry


Brinton, Tim
Grieve, Percy


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Brotherton, Michael
Grist, Ian


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Gummer, John Selwyn


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hannam, John


Budgen, Nick
Haselhurst, Alan


Bulmer, Esmond
Hastings, Stephen


Butcher, John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hawkins, Sir Paul


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)
Hayhoe, Barney


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Heddle, John


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Henderson, Barry


Chapman, Sydney
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Hill, James


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Hooson, Tom


Cockeram, Eric
Hordern, Peter


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Cope, John
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Corrie, John
Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman


Cranborne, Viscount
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Critchley, Julian
Jessel, Toby


Crouch, David
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Kaberry, Sir Donald





Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Knox, David
Rossi, Hugh


Lamont, Norman
Rost, Peter


Lang, Ian
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Latham, Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lawrence, Ivan
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lee, John
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Le Marchant, Spencer
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shepherd, Richard


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)
Shersby, Michael


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Silvester, Fred


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sims, Roger


Loveridge, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Lyell, Nicholas
Smith, Sir Dudley


McCrindle, Robert
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Macfarlane, Neil
Speller, Tony


MacGregor, John
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Sproat, Iain


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Squire, Robin


McQuarrie, Albert
Stainton, Keith


Major, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marland, Paul
Stanley, John


Marten, Rt Hon Neil
Steen, Anthony


Mather, Carol
Stevens, Martin


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Mawby, Ray
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stokes, John


Mayhew, Patrick
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mellor, David
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Thompson, Donald


Moate, Roger
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thornton, Malcolm


Montgomery, Fergus
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moore, John
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Morgan, Geraint
Trippier, David


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Trotter, Neville


Murphy, Christopher
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Myles, David
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Neale, Gerrard
Viggers, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Waddington, David


Neubert, Michael
Wakeham, John


Newton, Tony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Nott, Rt Hon Sir John
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Onslow, Cranley
Walker, B. (Perth)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Osborn, John
Waller, Gary


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Walters, Dennis


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Ward, John


Parris, Matthew
Warren, Kenneth


Patten, John (Oxford)
Watson, John


Pattie, Geoffrey
Wells, Bowen


Pawsey, James
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Percival, Sir Ian
Wheeler, John


Peyton, Rt Hon John
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Pink, R. Bonner
Whitney, Raymond


Pollock, Alexander
Wickenden, Keith


Porter, Barry
Wilkinson, John


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Wolfson, Mark


Proctor, K. Harvey
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Younger, Rt Hon George


Rathbone, Tim



Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)
Tellers for the Noes:


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. Archie Hamilton and


Renton, Tim
Mr. David Hunt.


Rhodes James, Robert

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 10

AGREEMENTS ON TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT (No. I)

'(1) It shall be the duty of each water authority and other statutory water undertaker to seek, either in conjunction with every other such authority or undertaker or by means of such association or other person or organisation as may represent all of them for this purpose, consultation with any organisation appearing to them to be appropriate with a view to the conclusion between them and that organisation of such agreements as appear to the parties to be desirable with respect to the establishment and maintenance of machinery for the settlement by negotiation of terms and conditions of employment of persons employed by the water authorities, other statutory water undertakers and any person referred to in section 3(4) of this Act with provision for reference to arbitration in default of such settlements in such cases as may be determined by or under the agreements.

(2) It shall be the duty of every water authority and all other statutory water undertakers and all employers coming into existence as a consequence of this Act to comply with any such agreement.

(3) Copies of any such agreement and of any instrument varying the terms of any such agreement shall be sent to the Secretary of State.—[Mr. Denis Howell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Denis Howell: I beg to move, That the clause be now read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this, it will be convenient to take new clause 9—Agreements on terms and conditions of employment (No. 2)—

'(1) It shall be the duty of each water authority and other statutory water undertaker to seek, either in conjunction with every other such authority or undertaker or by means of such association or other person or organisation as may represent all of them for this purpose, consultation with any organisation appearing to them to be appropriate with a view to the conclusion between them and that organisation of such agreements as appear to the parties to be desirable with respect to the establishment and maintenance of machinery for the settlement by negotiation of terms and conditions of employment of persons employed by the water authorities, other statutory water undertakers and any person referred to in section 3(4) of this Act with provision for reference to arbitration in default of such settlement in such cases as may be determined by or under the agreements.
(2) It shall be the duty of every water authority and all other statutory water undertakers and all employers coming into existence as a consequence of this Act to comply with any such agreement.
(3) Copies of any such agreement and of any instrument varying the terms of any such agreement shall be sent to the Secretary of State.
(4) The words "such agreement" in subsection (2) above shall include any agreement made pursuant to section 26(2) of the principal Act and in operation on the date of determination of the functions of the Council, as if the parties thereto had included all water authorities in place of the Council.'.

Mr. Howell: This debate is one of the most important this evening, because it involves the whole question of wage negotiations in the water industry and the maintenance of national wage negotiations. Clause 1 proposes to abolish the National Water Council and to replace it with 10 authorities. It will abolish one nationalised industry to replace it by 10 others. In the old days, the water industry's national wage negotiations were always conducted centrally under the collective responsibility of the local authorities and are presently conducted by the water authorities. What will happen now? New clause 10 calls for
the establishment and maintenance of machinery for the settlement by negotiation of terms and conditions of employment

of persons employed by the water authorities … with provision for reference to arbitration in default of such settlement in such cases as may be determined by or under the agreements.
There could not be a more appropriate time to discuss the water industry's wage negotiations. Only an hour ago, the trade union side informed me that it had left the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service after daylong discussions. Clearly, there is a grave threat of a national water strike for the first time in our history. It will affect the whole country. We debate such issues on the eve of what may well be the most damaging industrial dispute to be seen in this country for many a long year. It puts in perspective the importance of national joint negotiating machinery for the industry.
If the dispute should unfortunately escalate—and we must all hope and pray that it does not and that it is somehow resolved—the effect would be calamitous. Burst water mains will go unrepaired unless the Government have sufficient troops to bring in from the British Army of the Rhine or other quarters, or they can utilise the services of small contractors. In part, that will be the Government's response. I doubt whether it will be adequate. What is certain is that we have a large number of water main bursts every day, because of the age of our water service and supply industry. Many of them will not be dealt with efficiently and promptly, as the householders have a right to expect.
Many of the householders affected will be confronted with a serious problem. Before long the Secretary of State and other Ministers will have to advise householders that it will be their duty to boil every drop of water that comes from the taps because the quality of the water cannot be guaranteed or safeguarded.
Probably even more difficult will be the problem of the untreated sewage that will confront the water authorities. As we know from experience, and as I know from having to deal with this problem, the filters will not be cleaned. That will mean that one cannot guarantee the quality of the water going out of the sewerage system and into our rivers.
On previous occasions, members of the staff side of the water industry, NALGO members and others, have thought it their duty to clean the water filters and safeguard this aspect of the service. In the present dispute, NALGO has made it clear that it will not be prepared to offer that support to the water authorities. That is a new and difficult problem that will confront the authorities.
The result of all that will undoubtedly be that before long, in many of our water authority areas, and particularly in the Thames water authority, raw sewerage will find its way quickly into the river system with devastating effects. That will be contrary to the statutory requirements of water authorities, under both British and European legislation, to maintain the quality of the river system. This will happen very rapidly in any national dispute. Before we get ourselves into a national dispute, I feel that it is right to spell out these facts so that everybody knows exactly what the consequences of this lamentable problem will be.
Why has this dispute come about, and how have we got ourselves involved in this serious problem? It is a potentially most damaging problem, and it has come about as a direct result of Government interference in the wage negotiating machinery in the industry. The Government have to accept the full responsibility for having brought the position about.
We discussed this at length in Committee, so I shall not go into too many details, but I reassert the position. I am glad to see the Secretary of State here, because when he was a Minister of State he was directly responsible for the water industry and felt it right to intervene directly in the negotiation procedures.
The chairman of the National Water Council has made it clear that the Government intervened. As I have said on the Floor of the House and in Committee, the essential position is that the water chairmen were prepared to make an offer that they thought was negotiable and might be the basis of a settlement in this most essential of our industries. The offer was thought to be about 6 per cent., but on the day of the negotiation the Minister intervened by ringing up people involved in the negotiations and instructing them to offer 4 per cent. At the same moment, the Prime Minister was telling the House that the negotiators were completely free to reach their own decisions. That is now known not to have been the case. The Prime Minister had been sadly ill advised.
9.15 pm
The Government have got themselves into an absolutely hopeless situation. In recent months, there has been a total confusion of purpose and a total lack of principle in wage negotiations in the public sector. There has been a complete sense of expediency in the determination of judgments. If one follows this cycle—it is appropriate to use the word "cycle" when we are dealing with the water cycle as well as the wage cycle—we can see the impossible situation into which the Government have got themselves.
The Government used to belabour the previous Labour Government—I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), responsible for employment matters, is present—when we had difficulties during that awful winter about the vital importance of free collective bargaining. When the Conservative Government took over, they made it a first principle of industrial relations that they would always maintain free collective bargaining. The Government are therefore not in any position to complain if many of those on the trade union side of industry believed that there was some common purpose between the free collective bargaining that the trade unions wanted and the free collective bargaining that the Government stated to be their policy.
Very soon, as a result of the pursuit of the monetarist policy, which is the economic base on which they stand, the Government found that decisions and agreements reached by free collective bargaining were unacceptable and, indeed, embarrassing to them. When the Civil Service unions asked only last year that these matters should be resolved in a civilised manner and that they should be referred to arbitration, the Government, having first said that there was free collective bargaining and then having intervened, declared that there would be no arbitration for people in the public sector. Those events formed the backcloth to negotiations in the water industry. They were followed by blatant interference in free collective negotiations within the water industry which has brought about the present impasse.
It is extraordinary, now we are on the edge of this precipice, that the water authorities are saying, no doubt with the support of the Government, that they want to go

to arbitration. It is inconceivable that the water authorities would go to arbitration if they did not have the support or possibly the prompting of the Government. The issue has gone full circle. The Government are now meeting themselves coming back in wage negotiations. It is a dilemma that the Government face not only in the water industry but in other industries. It would, however, be out of order for me to discuss those other industries under the new clause.
The message I have received from today's union meeting is that the way out of the dilemma is not the arbitration that has been proposed. The simple reason is that the unions will not go to arbitration until they have first enjoyed what they believe is access to free negotiations with the employers' side. They say that they have not yet had any negotiation. Perhaps the Minister would care to reply to that. I hope that he will. The unions are saying that they have not yet had access to free negotiation with the employers for the water authorities, and ask how therefore they can consider entering into negotiation or anything of that nature until they can exercise the right of negotiation.
That brings us to the question how the Government propose to get out of the impasse that has been created. It is a matter of vital importance to the House and the country, as well as to the industry. Will the negotiators now be completely free to negotiate? As I understand the position, ACAS is going back to see the employers tomorrow, having spent all today with the trade union side. From my discussions with the trade union side, I have no doubt that ACAS will now ask "Are you in a position freely to negotiate? Is this a meaningful negotiation, if we get both sides together again?" I beg Ministers to understand that that is what the Opposition want. Wherever the political advantages lie, those of us who have been responsible for the industry, as I was for five years, know how horrible would be the effect of a prolonged strike. It would impose intolerable burdens on women with young babies, on old people, and on others. It is the duty of every right hon. and hon. Member and of the Government to try to prevent that. I am glad that the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary and I are in agreement on that. It would be an abhorrent situation.
We must allow both sides of the industry to solve the matter freely by negotiation in a responsible manner. There is no industry in the country which, throughout its long history, has had more responsible negotiators conducting its wages settlements than those in the water industry. Indeed, some of the difficulties that have now arisen about comparability with workers in gas, electricity, and so on, have arisen because of the sense of responsibility of the negotiators. So the question is: what settlement is open to the employers' representatives to negotiate with the trade union side? If the Government can make it clear today that there is completely free negotiation, and that the instruction to stand firm on a wholly unrealistic 4 per cent. has gone, we may at last begin to make the progress that we all want.
In case that does not prove possible, I take this opportunity to ask the Government what contingency plans they are making in the event of this catastrophe hitting the country. How do they intend, for example, to maintain the wholesome supply of clean water, which is their statutory duty under law? The statutory duty of the water authority is to supply people with a wholesome supply of clean water, and we want to know whether the Government


intend to maintain that obligation. How do the Government intend to deal with the questions that I have raised involving a serious burst of a water main, the quality of the water in the taps and in the rivers, and the effect of untreated sewage, as well as flooding, drainage, and many other questions that I have not raised in detail.
I raise these matters because they all arise directly from the national joint industrial council. In dealing with new clauses 9 and 10, I hope that the Government will say something helpful about national joint industrial councils.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Tom King): Will it be convenient if I intervene at some stage on the first issue that the right hon. Gentleman has raised? I am not sure whether this will be for the convenience of the House. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will reply to the general argument that the right hon. Gentleman is advancing in moving the new clause. I shall be happy to intervene if that is convenient.

Mr. Howell: I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that I can speak only once and I am about half way through my speech. I shall be happy to give way to the Secretary of State, who rightly discerns that I am moving on to the general principle.

Mr. King: If it is for the convenience of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall seek to catch your eye when the right hon. Gentleman has completed his remarks.

Mr. Howell: I am pleased to hear that. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman any encouragement by suggesting that I shall be quicker in the knowledge that he wishes to intervene. I take note of the fact that he is trying helpfully to intervene.
I move on from the immediate issue, which I think it was right to raise. Indeed, it would have been a dereliction of duty if I had not raised it. I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to Mr. Speaker, for allowing me some latitude.
The general issue that the new clause raises is the abolition of national negotiating machinery. This will be the inevitable consequence of destroying the National Water Council. In future, under the Bill we shall have 10 nationalised industries instead of one. That will mean that we shall have 10 pieces of negotiating machinery. There will be nine for the English regions and one for Wales instead of the present one.
We were told in Committee that these matters were being discussed by the chairmen and that they would come to a conclusion. I presume that their decision and the Government's decision will be reported to the House. In my judgment any decision to replace the central joint negotiating machinery in the water industry will be disastrous for the nation. It is inconceivable that anyone can believe that 10 separate water authorities should even consider holding 10 separate series of wage negotiations. The undermining of the national authority of the unions in those circumstances would be extremely embarrassing.
The action of leapfrogging is well known and is an obvious danger which one would have thought the Government could understand. The most important consequence that will flow from not having national negotiating machinery is that the position of the central negotiators, who have been so responsible over the years in their negotiations, will be undermined. Is that what is wanted? I think sometimes that it is what some Ministers

want. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield is listening to the debate. Having read some of the proposals by the Secretary of State for Employment for the Labour party, I came to the conclusion, as an ex-president of a trade union, that he was seeking to undermine the influence of the moderates within the trade union and labour movement. Irrespective of whether he wants to do that, that will be the inevitable consequence of his proposals. This is another example of people moving into areas that they do not understand and in which they will inflict enormous harm on the very causes and policies that they are seeking to espouse.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: My right hon. Friend, who has served on a local authority, will understand that the Government's proposals will take us back to the bad old days of the immediate post-war years. During that period I well recall authorities in the north-east fighting for what were then known as sanitary inspectors, who are now described as health inspectors. They offered salaries that were over the odds and sanitary inspectors moved from authority to authority to receive £5 and £10 increases. The local authorities were literally falling over one another to get the staff that they required. this is what will happen in the water industry. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is nonsensical to set man against man and area against area with people climbing over one another?

Mr. Howell: I entirely agree with all those considerations. However, transcending those considerations, which are personal and therefore vital to the people concerned, is the national interest. If we do away with national negotiation we shall undermine the national interest throughout the water industry.
There has been a period of comparative silence on the matter from the Government. We tried to deal with it in Committee. It was right to table the new clauses because it is essential that the Government have the opportunity to tell us their conclusions and what they are doing. One of the signs that the Government might not be acting in the best interests of the industry is the fact that although they propose to abolish the National Water Council and have nothing to say in the Bill about national joint industrial negotiations, none of the people involved was consulted by the Government about their proposals in the Bill. That resulted in a terrible loss of morale and undermining of confidence.
I hope that the Under-Secretary or the Secretary of State will be able to satisfy us on questions that I have been asked to raise by the staff side. Those questions are important to the National Water Council. Will the staff be offered alternative jobs? What are their prospects? Will their pension rights be protected? What about their redundancy payments? Those are all the usual questions. The replies are essential to those individuals, who are entitled to ask the questions.
One of the other aspects of national joint negotiations that is of great concern is the training programme in the water industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Campbell) has a special interest in that matter and talked about it on Second Reading. We have not been told what will happen to the training schemes on the industry, which are of the highest quality and are a great credit to it. They have served us


well. Is it suggested that the overall training scheme for the industry should be broken up and replaced by ten separate training schemes? I know that some of the regional water authorities would like to do that, but it would not be in the best interests of the country.
I am conscious that many hon. Members want to speak. I have probably spoken for too long. I hope that I shall be excused for that in view of the gravity of the questions that have been raised. We are concerned about the matter. I am glad that the Secretary of State will respond immediately about the strike in the water industry. I hope that the Under-Secretary will assure us that the national joint industrial councils will be maintained with the responsibility for wages, negotiation and training, which the situation demands.

Mr. King: It might be for the convenience of the House if I intervene briefly to respond to the comments made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) in his fair preamble to the new clause about the future negotiating procedures for the water authorities. I hope that the House will be agreeable if I leave it to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to reply specifically on the future arrangements and to respond to the new clause. I shall confine myself to commenting on the right hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks about the current situation, which is germane to negotiating arrangements. I entirely endorse his comments about the gravity of the situation. He is familiar from his own experience with the effects that limited industrial action had in certain parts of the country at the time of the Labour Government.
As the House knows, the unions concerned have now given notice of certain forms of industrial action immediately, with effect from tonight, with overtime bans and refusal of co-operation, and of a national strike with effect from midnight on Sunday. As the right hon. Gentleman fairly said, both sides are having discussions with ACAS, and I wish to say nothing from the Dispatch Box today that might in any way impede, interfere with or confuse those very important discussions. I am grateful that the right hon. Gentleman, too, chose his words carefully. I intend to say nothing more about those matters now as they are the subject of direct discussions.
There are procedures in the water industry for settling disputes and I hope that they can be observed. In view of the gravity of the matters that might otherwise be involved, I think that the country is entitled to expect that those procedures are observed. I hope very much that the Opposition will feel able to lend their support to encouraging the observance of agreed procedures. No one in the House needs any further emphasis of the gravity of what might happen if serious industrial action took place.
The right hon. Gentleman raised the important question of contingency plans. As soon as we received notice of the decisions taken by the unions at their meeting yesterday, announcing the immediate industrial action that they proposed to take and the fact that from next Sunday they would propose a national strike, the Government took immediate steps to put contingency arrangements in hand. I can inform the House that contingency arrangements, which I imagine are very similar to those that the Labour Government had in place for such situations, were immediately put in hand and troops are on notice of standby to be available. I should say at once that it is my very

earnest hope that they will not be required and that the matter will be sensibly resolved without any need for their involvement, but I think that the House will agree that in a situation of this kind the Government have a responsibility and that we should have been totally failing in that responsibility if we had not taken precautionary steps.
As the right hon. Gentleman, who knows as much about these matters as I, will recognise, it is unclear how far such contingency measures can go to meet the situations that might arise. The honest truth is that no one is quite clear what types of situation may arise, their scale and frequency, the work load and the problems that may be posed. The contingency arrangements are not a solution to the problem, but they are the best response that the Government can make in terms of taking precautions at this stage in view of the serious consequences that could arise.
It is important to make it clear that we face serious disagreements. The water industry and the national joint industrial council have recognised in the past that they could face serious disagreements in their negotiations and discussions and there are procedures for seeking to resolve such disagreements. I hope very much that those procedures will be successful and I trust that it is the hope of the whole House that ACAS will be able to find some basis on which the matter can be resolved sensibly.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. He has said twice that there are procedures within the industry for the settlement of disputes. The prerequisite of the settlement of the threatened dispute is the freedom for employers and employees to negotiate freely. Can the Secretary of State assure us that the Government are prepared to back off and stop leaning on the employers by insisting on the 4 per cent.?

Mr. King: The trap that the hon. Member is trying to lead me into is a discussion of the merits of the arguments that are being deployed before ACAS. The issue has a long history, as the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath said when he referred to comparability.
I shall not go any further into the subject. It has a long history. Many meetings have taken place. There is a substantial divide. That is no secret between the bodies concerned. I may have misheard the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown), but I wish to correct a factual point. The offer of arbitration as an alternative was made at the first meeting between the employers and the unions. It has not emerged more recently. That is part of the procedures in the industry. The House will understand that I do not wish to press any further on the subject today.
The hon. Gentleman fairly asked me about contingency arrangements. It was proper for him to ask, in view of the gravity of the problem. I hope that I have made it clear that those contingency measures have been taken and have now been put in hand. I am sure that that is the assurance that the hon. Gentleman would wish to have.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for speaking but I am left with a profound sense of disappointment. I appreciate his reply to the contingency planning point. The fact that he spoke about it in isolation,


apart from any constructive discussion of how we may get out of the negotiation impasse, will lead people to fear the worst.
The point that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown) made is crucial. I hope that the Secretary of State will deal with it. I accept that arbitration may have been offered on the first day of negotiations. In practice, that means that when the trade unions met the employers, they were told that they must accept 4 per cent. or go to arbitration. What is more, the 4 per cent. was offered on the instruction of the Government. In no sense is that free negotiation. That is what has brought us to the present extraordinary circumstances.
It is essential that the Government do not go into the merits of the negotiations—it would be ludicrous for me to suggest that—but when ACAS goes back to the employers' side tomorrow, it must be able to ask whether they can settle and negotiate freely. That is the only question that a trade union organiser worth his salt is interested in.
If the Secretary of State does not take this opportunity to clarify that point, his statement will not have helped but will have made a real solution more difficult to achieve. He should have taken this opportunity to say that the negotiators are free to negotiate to the best of their judgment the most sensible settlement that they can achieve for the industry. If he cannot tell us that the negotiators are free to settle—free, that is, from Government interference—I regret that the problem will be even more difficult tomorrow than I thought it would be.

Mr. King: I am not sure whether that was an intervention or another speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I took it to be an intervention.

Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman has invited me to advance some ideas as to how the dispute might be resolved. I wish to make it clear that, because these matters are currently being considered by ACAS, I have no intention of intervening. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot comment further. ACAS is holding discussions with each party concerned and it would be irresponsible to comment further.
The right hon. Gentleman asked a specific question. He understands the position very well, and also why it would not be wise for me to comment further.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: rose—

Mr. King: If the hon. Gentleman listened, he would understand why I shall not give way.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I declare an interest as Secretary of the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union group of Members of Parliament. I wish to express my deep concern. We are on the brink of a national stoppage that could result in far worse consequences than have resulted from any other stoppage experienced in Britain. I refer to a stoppage in the water supply and sewage industry. I was encouraged when the Secretary of State intervened, but disappointed with his statement. If anything, he has worsened the position. I hoped that he would say something to give hope for believing that the needless stoppage would not take place.
I have a letter from Mr. Eddie Newall, the secretary of the national joint industrial council for the industry. He is a national industrial officer in my union. Two-thirds of the 29,000 workers in the industry are organised by the union. He says in his letter:
The combined memberships have voted by 4 to 1 to reject the Employers' offer and to authorise strike action in the Industry. The Executive Councils have considered the ballot result and given authority for strike action to secure a satisfactory settlement. Contacts with the Employers since then have made it clear that the Government has, in effect, taken over the decision making in the negotiations and that the Employers have no freedom whatsoever to respond to the desire of the Trade Union Side for a negotiated settlement.
That is a serious statement, which a responsible individual such as Eddie Newall would not put on paper if it had not been absolutely true, chapter and verse. The letter continued:
I should point out that whilst the unions are determined to safeguard public health and safety it is inevitable that if troops are used our members will walk out completely. They have made this clear on several occasions.
I sincerely hope that the Government take on hoard the seriousness of the nature of the dispute if troops are involved. I must warn the Government that, without the assistance of the professional engineers in the industry, the troops cannot do the job. I was Army Minister for five years, and can claim a little knowledge of the capacity of the technical corps of the British Army. I can say without fear of contradiction that there is no way in which the Army, Navy and Air Force combined can provide the technical know-how to avoid an absolute catastrophe if the dispute goes ahead.
Mr. Newall continued:
The Government seen determined on enforcing a rigid 'pay policy', and denying the Employers the freedom to negotiate a settlement which deals with the specific problems of our industry. It would seem that they are prepared to face up to a major industrial conflict with a group of workers who have never before taken strike action on a National scale, and who have a history of reaching negotiated settlements.
That shows the serious nature of the issue. Those workers are not a set of industrial hotheads who down tools at the drop of a hat three or four times a year. They are an extremely responsible work force who, in the past, have responded at all times to negotiations and who would do so on this occasion if they were given the opportunity.
If the strike comes off, there can be no doubt where the responsibility will lie—firmly at the door of the Government. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said, at the general election many trade unionists voted for the Government on the basis of a commitment to free collective bargaining. The water workers are denied the right to negotiate with their employers, the National Water Council. To talk about arbitration at the opening meeting of national negotiations, to make one offer and then to say that it must be arbitration or nothing, makes complete and arrant nonsense of the negotiating procedures in the industry. Arbitration is a long-stop, something that is used when the employers and employees have been locked together in endless hours of negotiation and can make no headway. At that point, they say "We must go to arbitration". They do not say that on the first day of the first meeting.
It is an open secret that the water employers were prepared to go to that first meeting and to make an offer of about 6 per cent. If that had happened I am convinced that, two or three meetings later, the negotiations would


have been completed and a settlement reached. There would have been no talk of strike action whatever. However, it goes without saying that the employers were instructed by the Government because the Prime Minister is obsessed with the 4 per cent norm in the public sector. That obsession exists despite the fact that she besmirched herself by the commitment to free collective bargaining that she gave during the 1979 election campaign.
We all know about the unceremonious way in which the chairman of the National Water Council, Sir Robert Marshall, was bundled out of office, sacked or given the boot. Why? He was not prepared to remain as chairman and to see his industry bedevilled by the Government. The threatened strike could be avoided within hours—I am extremely disappointed with the Secretary of State's statement and the fact that he has now left the debate—if the Government were prepared to return to sanity and to announce tonight that the National Water Council and the NJIC for the industry could get back round the table and recommence, or commence—"recommence" was the wrong word to use—meaningful negotiations. It is scandalous that at this late stage the Government have not sought the permission of Mr. Speaker to make a statement on such a grave threatened dispute.
I need not describe the scenario of the disaster that will befall the British public if the strike goes ahead. The idea of sewage flowing down Downing Street and Whitehall does not appeal to me, but the idea of sewage flowing down the streets of West Newcastle appeals to me even less. I hope that it will not happen, but it could happen if we reach a precipitous position.
It angers and worries me that this has happened despite the fact that the water workers are eminently reasonable people. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) is chairman of the Newcastle and Gateshead water company and he knows how reasonable his employees are. The hon. Gentleman nods his head in agreement. If the Minister could have said from the Dispatch Box tonight that the Government are prepared to allow the National Water Council and the NJIC to enter into meaningful negotiations without the Government insisting on the 4 per cent.—

Mr. Don Dixon: Does my hon. Friend accept that the dispute turns the Government's policy on its head? Previously, when public sector workers were in dispute they asked to go to arbitration and were refused by the Government. Now the Government are saying that the water workers must go to arbitration immediately without negotiation. During the National Health Service strike the Government said "Get back round the table". That is exactly what my hon. Friend is asking for the water workers, but the Government have taken an entirely opposite attitude towards them.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is correct to say that in this case the negotiations had not started when the Government said that there must be arbitration, whereas in other public service disputes there were endless hours of negotiaion and arbitration was refused.
Although the water workers are eminently reasonable, attitudes will harden if a strike starts. I am sure that after two or three meetings between the employers and the employees a reasonable solution could have been agreed without any strike threat. Now we have that threat, but it

is still possible to avoid the strike. It is imperative that we do so, because once the strike starts and attitudes harden, the individual who might have said "8½ per cent. to 9 per cent. is enough for me", if he has lost a week or two weeks' wages, will say "To yon place with the Government. They will pay for this now. I want my 15 per cent."
Finally, the leading article of today's edition in Newcastle of The Journal, states:
This is a major challenge to the Government's policy on public sector pay—and since we have never lived through a water workers' strike before, it is difficult to calculate what the precise effects will be.
Potentially, of course, the consequences for the health of the nation could be very serious indeed—and it must be said that the Government are so far losing the propaganda battle over the four per cent. offer.
The British people are certainly not behind the Government on the 4 per cent. offer. The editor of the journal concludes by saying:
The danger is that the public may now become the victims as the watermen test their determination against the Government's resolve.….unless the new Environment Secretary, Mr. Tom King, can be persuaded to make an eleventh hour intervention.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That at this day's sitting, the Water Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.——[Mr. Major.]

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am sure that it was inadvertent on his part, but my hon. Friend quite wrongly kept saying that it is the Government's policy to restrict public service increases to 4 per cent. He is quite wrong, It is the poorer paid workers who suffer. The charimen of nationalised boards can get 15 per cent. on their £30,000, £40,000 or £50,000 a year without any question. It is the poorer paid public servants who, apparently, have to be restricted. If they earn thousands of pounds per week, they can get 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. with no questions asked.

Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). It is true that if one is a senior civil servant, a general, admiral or air marshal one can get 19 per cent. or 20 per cent. from this Government who are committed to a 4 per cent. norm for the public sector and for the manual worker already in receipt of fairly poor pay.
I echo the plea of the editor of the Newcastle Journal that the Minister of State must intervene. It is no good lying back and saying "The negotiations are at a delicate stage, They are with ACAS now". ACAS can do nothing unless we have a firm assurance from the Goverment tonight that the water employers will have the right to free and untrammelled negotiations with their employees.

Mr. David Lambie: As a Scottish Member, I shall not follow directly the speeches made by my two hon. Friends who have already spoken. Although wage negotiations for water workers in Scotland are separate from those of their colleagues in England and Wales, I know that the water workers in Scotland would give full support to any action taken by their colleagues in England and Wales.
I am glad to see a Minister from the Scottish Office present. I hope that he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will not make the same mistakes at the beginning of the wage negotiations with water workers in Scotland that his colleagues at the Department of the Environment made.
The Secretary of State for Scotland should allow the employers, the regional councils in Scotland, to make a reply to any application for wage increases from the water workers that takes into account the important job that water workers in Scotland and in England and Wales do. The wages of people in this industry have been kept down for too long. They are entitled to better wages and conditions.
I am interested in the employees of the National Water Council, especially those whose jobs will cease to exist in September 1983 when the National Water Council is abolished. I am interested in the future employment prospects for people in these industries, especially in the training sector. I am also interested in the pension rights and conditions of service that are offered by any future employer.
On Second Reading, I expressed concern about the future of Melvin House in Kilwinning, in my constituency. I stated that there was nothing in the Bill to say how the present functions of the National Water Council were to be handled after September 1983, when the council ceases to exist. I was particularly interested in training and the future job prospects of my constituents who are employed at Melvin House—one of the National Water Council's training centres which serves the Scottish regional councils' water and sewerage departments, the river purification boards in Scotland and the Department of the Environment's water services in Northern Ireland.
I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is present, because on Second Reading I criticised the absence of Scottish Office Ministers. Even though we were debating an English Bill, there were clauses in it that were of particular interest to Scotland. Following that debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland wrote to me stating that the Government expected the water industry to come up with its own proposals for future training arrangements and that the Scottish Development Department had encouraged the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish River Purification Boards Association to enter into discussions with their colleagues in the regional water authorities in England and Wales.
At the end of November, two regional water authority chairmen—Mr. Mann, chairman of the North-West water authority, and Mr. Matthews, chairman of the Yorkshire water authority, who at that time were developing training proposals on behalf of the chairmen's industry committee—met with representatives of CoSLA's water and sewerage committees. I am told that that meeting was useful, but it emerged that there was a wide spread of views among the regional water authorities about how training should be organised. To assist in developing detailed proposals, the two chairmen set up a small working party of officials, and invited Mr. Devenay, the director of water for Strathclyde regional council, to join the group. That was a good decision, as it provided a Scottish input to the discussions.
While as yet there are no final and detailed proposals, I am told that the two chairmen have made it clear that in general the regional water authority chairmen are in favour

of the establishment of a new limited company to take over the National Water Council's training assets and to carry out such central training as is still required, with the Scottish authorities and the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment among the shareholders of that company. Such a solution would allow Scottish requirements on training and funding to be accommodated, even if different from the regional water authorities of England and Wales.
The two regional water authority chairmen are required to present a report on training arrangements to the chairmen's industry committee by the end of January. If approved, it will be forwarded to the Secretary of State for the Environment. When the Secretary of State for Scotland considers this report, I hope that he will push for training on a national scale to be continued and for Melvin House, with its great traditions, to be retained as the northern training centre.
I accept that there have been recent and justifiable criticisms about the present training facilities and that these have been expressed in the chairmen's industry committee. However, I stress that none of those criticisms applies to the services supplied by Melvin House and its staff.
If a limited company is established to take over the National Water Council's training assets, it follows that the staff at Melvin House will, after September 1983, be employed by that limited company. That is why these amendments are important, because they try to give protection to former employees of the National Water Council after it ceases to exist.
It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that an offer of employment is made, not later than the day following the day the council ceases to exist, to the staff of Melvin House by the new employers, the proposed limited company. The present terms and conditions of employment and pension rights must be continued in any future organisation. The negotiated agreements should be respected and, if there are disputes, they should, as suggested in new clause 9, be referred for discussion to new arbitration machinery.
The proposals in new clauses 9 and 10 do not go far enough but at least they would give safeguards to the staff employed in Melvin House and the other training establishments. That is why I am speaking as a Scottish Member in this predominantly English and Welsh debate in support of the employment prospects of constituents who are employed in the training services of the National Water Council.

Mr. Durant: I should like to intervene briefly following on what the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) has said about the training side of the industry. I had the honour recently to visit a training establishment for the water industry, Flint House, at Goring near my constituency. The people there are concerned about their future, as are those in all the other training establishments. I do not think that they are any more anxious than the rest.
The Government should make a statement soon. There are jobs at stake and the people want to know what will happen. We have learnt from the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire about some of the steps that are being taken. This was revealing to me; I had not heard it. We ought to know more about the steps that are to be taken. I hope that the working party mentioned by the hon. Member will give


favourable consideration to places like Flint House. It is a small establishment, but it covers one of the widest training areas. It is always the small establishments that get nervous when matters like this are involved. I make a special plea on its behalf that as soon as possible the Government should make clear what will happen on the training side. Those in the water industry are skilled people, and training is essential. The training carried out at these establishments is of a high standard. I hope that they will continue under whatever system is worked out. The sooner everyone knows what is to happen, the better.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: It is with some regret that I have to refer to the behaviour of the Secretary of State in this debate. It was particularly discourteous of him to make his statement and then leave the Chamber before listening to the Opposition's comments, particularly the well-informed comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, West (Mr. Brown). The Secretary of State owed to the House the courtesy to listen for at least a few minutes. One has the suspicion that he is out busily trying to manage the reporting of his speech. Having perhaps felt he did not do very well in the House he wants to make sure that the media put the most sympathetic gloss on it.
The right hon. Gentleman ought to have given an undertaking to continue to keep the House informed about the progress on negotiations and of the contingency plans. He should have said that he would seek, either on Thursday of Friday, to make a statement to the House. It is the least that we on this side of the House can demand. If the Minister was not prepared to say any more tonight, he should have been prepared to undertake to make a statement later in the week on both the negotiations and the contingency plans.
Many of my constituents in the north-west of England who did not themselves experience the problems of the unofficial disputes in the spring of 1979 but who were close to those problems and heard them reported by the media are extremely alarmed that similar problems may occur in their area and throughout the country. There is very little possibility of the Government being able to produce contingency plans which could cope on a national scale.
At the same time, many of my constituents who work in the water industry are extremely bitter about the length of time that they have been hearing people say that they should be compared with other public utilities when it is a matter of rebates and so on, but as soon as wage negotiations arise when they want a comparison to be made with the rates that are paid for similar jobs in the gas and electricity industries they are told that it is nothing to do with them and that there should be no comparability.
10.15 pm
The Government must make a better offer through the water undertakings and must do so quickly to satisfy the legitimate demands of the people in the water industry who cannot be fobbed off any longer. They want that extra offer to be made as soon as possible. The Government have a duty to ensure that that offer is made before a national dispute occurs rather than afterwards. It has been made clear that it is much easier to get a sensible offer accepted before rather than after a dispute. In view of the great difficulties which would arise from such a dispute, the

Government owe it to the country to ensure that an offer is made quickly. The Government also owe it to the House to guarantee that they will, on Thursday or Friday, make a progress report on the negotiations.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: New clause 9 sets out a clear and sensible approach to national wage negotiations by creating a central bargaining machine. It will prevent a leapfrogging arrangement which, in the minds of some water workers today, may be one reason why they feel sufficiently provoked into possibly taking full industrial action next Monday with the possible total withdrawal of their labour.
As a result of having observed other industrial disputes, may I predict what will happen? If the Government allow matters to deteriorate to the point where there is a full withdrawal of labour next week, and as the Bill has yet to attain the approval of their Lordships, they may seek further to amend it in the light of likely developments over the next days, weeks or months.
It is an interesting precedent that we are perhaps on the eve of a national withdrawal of labour at the same time as the Bill is passing through the House. Many of the difficulties and confusions that exist in the minds of water workers today stem from the clear undertakings given by the Prime Minister and the Government during the last general election that the Government subscribed to principles of free collective bargaining.
Water workers nationally know of those press reports which were adequately presented in the Financial Times in late November, when it was alleged that the former Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services, now the Secretary of State for the Environment, had telephoned different persons involved in the negotiations throughout Britain, and also representatives of the National Water Council, to ensure that the 6 per cent. offer that was being implied was not made. Indeed, only a 4 per cent. offer was made. There remains in the minds of many water workers nationally the belief that additional money has been on the table, that it is there still to be offered, and that it is only the Government who are preventing that fuller offer from being made.
The Government were elected on principles of free collective bargaining that I and some of my hon. Friends oppose. I think that it was Sid Weighell who described free collective bargaining as the politics of the pig trough, those with the biggest snouts getting the lion's share. However, that is not the key issue today. The water workers believe that undertakings that were given to them by the Labour Government and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) would have given them comparability with gas and electricity workers and were reasonable. They felt that this Government should have complied with those arrangements. If they are reticent about arbitration today, it is because they believe that the Government should be negotiating directly with them, prior to any arbitration, with a view to establishing the objectives set for them some years ago.
Mr. Mick Martin, the public services national secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, said:
The Government have made arbitration a dirty word by refusing it in the Civil Service dispute two years ago and in last year's health dispute and refusing in other cases to implement arbitration awards.
In part, that may well be why such suspicion exists in the minds of the water workers.
I sound a note of caution on the eve of possible industrial action. I am told that members of the National Union of Public Employees voted by four to one in favour of the industrial action. Some of us have observed industrial action at close quarters. I remember one instance of industrial action in the steel industry very well, because my constituency was affected. During the National Health Service dispute there was a fairly substantial disruption of services in the west of the county in which my constituency lies and feelings were strong. I also remember the Civil Service dispute. Some clear conclusions can be drawn. For example, such industrial action works only when the Government are conscious of the need to preserve the social fabric. That is what I call playing by the rules. The Government must understand that they are under an obligation to preserve that social fabric.
However, that will, understanding, determination and commitment are not to be found in this Government. There is a recklessness in the Government's attitude towards the preservation of the social fabric. Some of us observed from a distance but took note of what happened when there was a threat of a miners' strike. Some of us also believe that the Prime Minister would have allowed disruption, would not have compromised, and would have let the social fabric be totally undermined in her obsessive belief that to win is to be right and that to comprise is to be wrong.
The NHS dispute was a good example of that. Tens of thousands of people were added to the waiting lists of hospitals, yet there were no groans of pain from Downing Street or from the DHSS. Ministers seemed unaffected. They blamed the trade unions and refused to accept any responsibility.
Even in the Civil Service dispute, it was a Committee that established that the arrears to the Exchequer were about £1 billion. I am sure that I shall be corrected if I am wrong. At the time, we were being given clear signals from the Treasury that there were no problems. It was only afterwards, when the sums were added up, that we saw the great losses to the Exchequer as a result of the industrial action. Even in those conditions, the Government persisted and did not give way.
The trade unions should be careful and deliberate because the present Government do not play by the normal rules of a Government managing a civilised society. They believe that they can cheat and that they do not have an obligation to the public to preserve the social fabric of the nation.

Mr. Giles Shaw: It will not come as a surprise to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) that we consider it unnecessary for there to be statutory requirements for the arrangements to be made for the negotiation and agreement on pay and other terms and conditions of service. The parties should be free to establish whatever machinery they consider appropriate and to change it by mutual agreement if and when circumstances require. They will no doubt wish to consider the various options that are available.
I give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance, which is wanted at the moment, that the Government do not wish to impose a particular structure of pay bargaining on the parties. Much has been made by hon. Members, and to some extent by the right hon. Gentleman, of the belief that one interpretation of the major objectives of the Bill is that we wish to get rid of national pay bargaining and introduce

regionalised negotiation in the water industry. If that were our intention, we could have legislated for it. It is open to all interested parties, including Government and the Opposition, to take and express their views on the arguments for and against pay bargaining at regional or national level, and that is fully understood. I emphasise that it is not our intention to impose our point of view by legislative means.
Certain other matters were raised in connection with this clause. The right hon. Member for Small Heath asked, in particular, about pensions. The Yorkshire water authority is to be designated under the local government superannuation regulations as the administrating body for the water industry pension fund. The water authorities and the Department of the Environment, are considering what arrangements are possible to delegate responsibilities for effective managerial control of the fund to a committee of representatives from all the water authorities. The designation to the Yorkshire water authority will be effected before the National Water Council is abolished, and the machinery for the payment of pensions will be preserved intact. That is an important consideration.
With regard to training, I was glad to hear how well informed the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie) was in the discussions on Melvin House. He will be aware from what my hon. Friend has passed on to him that this has been given full consideration. The matter of training has not yet been completed by the consideration of the chairman's committee. The existing training scheme will have to cease when the council is wound up.
The water authority chairmen are still considering the central requirements for training after that time. We understand that there will be some provision for central training, but the precise scale and the number of staff and training centres required still remains to be resolved. As the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire will now know, the provisions for the requirements of Scotland and Northern Ireland will be considered in the final proposals. We expect a conclusion on this matter from the chairmen in early February and arrangements will be made for the proper information to be established.
The right hon. Member for Small Heath mentioned staffing levels. It is too early to report to the House what will be the consequences for central staffing as a result of the establishment of the association of water authority chairmen, but I fully understand the anxiety of getting this decision through quickly so that everybody will be informed. I advise the right hon. Gentleman that the absolute numbers to be employed centrally will be significantly fewer than those employed currently in the National Water Council.
I advise the House to resist the new clause. The arrangements for pay and bargaining will, and should, be left to the determination of the water authority chairmen in discussion with trade union representatives. I shall see that the comments of the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) on the intervention of my right hon. Friend are passed on to my right hon. Friend. I can assure him that the House will be kept properly informed of developments.

Mr. Denis Howell: By leave of the House, I should like briefly to respond to the remarks of the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State in this important


debate. I found both contributions profoundly disappointing. While the Secretary of State mentioned contingency planning, it is a matter of great regret that he chose deliberately to say nothing about the essential questions facing the negotiators in this potentially damaging strike, due to start on Sunday.
The right hon. Gentleman said nothing about the reversal of the Government's attitude on arbitration. This is bound to be the cause of considerable suspicion among the unions. Why can arbitration be offered on day one to the water workers when it has been consistently refused over the past two years in respect of Health Service and Civil Service workers?
I could not have put more clearly the questions that it is essential to answer. Are the negotiators free to negotiate? It is sad that the Secretary of State refused to answer that question. It is also potentially very damaging. Are they free agents? Unless the Government make clear that they are free agents, there can be no significant progress. The silence of the Secretary of State was deafening. That may be very damaging. If no progress is made within the next 48 hours, the House will have to return again to this issue.
I must also record my disappointment with the reply of the Under-Secretary of State on whether the national joint industrial negotiating machinery is to be maintained. It seems to me inconceivable that the Under-Secretary cannot say tonight what is the Government's attitude on this vital question. The hon. Gentleman has stated that the Government do not wish to impose any one system of wage bargaining on the industry. In response to my argument about the necessity to maintain the national joint industrial negotiating machinery, the hon. Gentleman said, if I quote him accurately, that the Government do not wish to impose any one system of wage bargaining upon the new association of water chairmen. What does that mean?

Mr. Giles Shaw: I stated that the Government would not wish to legislate and to impose upon this industry its form of central or regional wage negotiations. I made it clear that the chairmen of the regional water authorities, as now formed into the association, in negotiation, no doubt, with the trade unions, will determine what form of central or regional bargaining structure they wish to have.

Mr. Howell: I am bound to repeat my question: what does that mean? If one regional water authority says that it does not intend to go into any central wage negotiating machinery which the other authorities want to do, does it mean that that water authority can stand alone and conduct its own individual negotiations? If that is what it means, it will be a disaster for the water industry.

Mr Shaw: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is right.

Mr. Howell: If I am right, surely the Government should have a view on the matter and legislate on that basis. They should say that they want a national joint industrial council. If Anglia, the North-West, or any other regional water authority wanted to go it alone, it would destroy any suggestion of collective responsibility in the water industry. I am bound to record my profound disappointment at the situation that the Under-Secretary has revealed.
What the Under-Secretary said about training was helpful, and we await developments. As we both acknowledge, this is a matter of great importance.
The Under-Secretary made it clear tonight, in his brief reference to the staffing question, that there will be considerable redundancies in the National Water Council. It is a matter of great regret. One would have thought that it was possible to utilise methods of natural wastage. I hope that the chairman will do that, and try to find jobs for people who have served the industry well and whose livelihoods are in jeopardy unless some collective responsibility is accepted by the chairman. I am glad to see the Minister nodding, and I trust that he will use his best endeavours to bring that about.
We are discussing a matter of great importance. It is probably the most vital issue in the whole Bill, on the eve of the proposed water strike. I urge all my hon. Friends to register their disgust at the situation which the Government have contrived, by their direct intervention, by voting for new clause 10.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 268.

Division No. 43]
[10.36 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Dunnett, Jack


Adams, Allen
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Allaun, Frank
Eastham, Ken


Anderson, Donald
Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
English, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Evans, John (Newton)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Ewing, Harry


Beith, A. J.
Faulds, Andrew


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Field, Frank


Bennett, Andrew(St'kp't N)
Fitch, Alan


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Flannery, Martin


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ford, Ben


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Forrester, John


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Foster, Derek


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Foulkes, George


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Buchan, Norman
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Campbell, Ian
George, Bruce


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Golding, John


Canavan, Dennis
Gourlay, Harry


Cant, R. B.
Graham, Ted


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Clarke,Thomas(C'b'dge, A'rie)
Hardy, Peter


Cohen, Stanley
Harman, Harriet (Peckham)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Conlan, Bernard
Haynes, Frank


Cook, Robin F.
Heffer, Eric S.


Cowans, Harry
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Cox, T. (Wdsw'th, Toot'g)
Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Home Robertson, John


Crowther, Stan
Homewood, William


Cryer, Bob
Hooley, Frank


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Howell, Rt Hon D.


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Howells, Geraint


Davidson, Arthur
Hoyle, Douglas


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Huckfield, Les


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Deakins, Eric
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Janner, Hon Greville


Dewar, Donald
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Dixon, Donald
John, Brynmor


Dobson, Frank
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Dormand, Jack
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Douglas, Dick
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)


Dubs, Alfred
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald






Kerr, Russell
Robertson, George


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Lambie, David
Rooker, J. W.


Lamond, James
Roper, John


Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Leighton, Ronald
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Sever, John


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Sheerman, Barry


Litherland, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Short, Mrs Renée


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Silverman, Julius


McCartney, Hugh
Skinner, Dennis


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


McElhone, Mrs Helen
Snape, Peter


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Soley, Clive


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Spearing, Nigel


McKelvey, William
Spriggs, Leslie


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Stallard, A. W.


McWilliam, John
Stoddart, David


Marks, Kenneth
Stott, Roger


Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)
Strang, Gavin


Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)
Straw, Jack


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Maxton, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Meacher, Michael
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Mikardo, Ian
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Tilley, John


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Tinn, James


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Torney, Tom


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)


Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Warden, Gareth


Newens, Stanley
Weetch, Ken


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Welsh, Michael


O'Neill, Martin
White, Frank R.


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Palmer, Arthur
Whitehead, Phillip


Park, George
Whitlock, William


Parker, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Parry, Robert
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Pavitt, Laurie
Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)


Pendry, Tom
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Prescott, John
Winnick, David


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Woodall, Alec


Race, Reg
Woolmer, Kenneth


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Wright, Sheila


Richardson, Jo
Young, David (Bolton E)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)



Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Mr. George Morton and


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Mr. Ioan Evans.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Alexander, Richard
Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Arnold, Tom
Braine, Sir Bernard


Aspinwall, Jack
Bright, Graham


Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)
Brinton, Tim


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon


Atkinson, David (B'm'th.E)
Brooke, Hon Peter


Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)
Brotherton, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)


Banks, Robert
Browne, John (Winchester)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Bryan, Sir Paul


Bendall, Vivian
Buck, Antony


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Budgen, Nick


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Bulmer, Esmond


Berry, Hon Anthony
Butcher, John


Best, Keith
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Blackburn, John
Chapman, Sydney


Blaker, Peter
Churchill, W. S.


Body, Richard
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)





Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Lamont, Norman


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lang, Ian


Clegg, Sir Walter
Latham, Michael


Cockeram, Eric
Lawrence, Ivan


Colvin, Michael
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Cope, John
Lee, John


Corrie, John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Cranborne, Viscount
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Critchley, Julian
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)


Crouch, David
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dorrell, Stephen
Loveridge, John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Lyell, Nicholas


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
McCrindle, Robert


Durant, Tony
Macfarlane, Neil


Dykes, Hugh
MacGregor, John


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Eggar, Tim
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Elliott, Sir William
McQuarrie, Albert


Emery, Sir Peter
Major, John


Eyre, Reginald
Marland, Paul


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Fairgrieve, Sir Russell
Mather, Carol


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Fell, Sir Anthony
Mawby, Ray


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Mayhew, Patrick


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Mellor, David


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fookes, Miss Janet
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Fox, Marcus
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Miscampbell, Norman


Gardner, Sir Edward
Moate, Roger


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Monro, Sir Hector


Glyn, Dr Alan
Montgomery, Fergus


Goodlad, Alastair
Moore, John


Gow, Ian
Morgan, Geraint


Grant, Sir Anthony
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Gray, Rt Hon Hamish
Murphy, Christopher


Greenway, Harry
Myles, David


Grieve, Percy
Neale, Gerrard


Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)
Nelson, Anthony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Neubert, Michael


Grist, Ian
Newton, Tony


Gummer, John Selwyn
Nott, Rt Hon Sir John


Hamilton, Hon A.
Onslow, Cranley


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hampson, Dr Keith
Osborn, John


Hannam, John
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Haselhurst, Alan
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hastings, Stephen
Parris, Matthew


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hawksley, Warren
Pawsey, James


Hayhoe, Barney
Percival, Sir Ian


Henderson, Barry
Pink, R. Bonner


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Pollock, Alexander


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Porter, Barry


Hill, James
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hooson, Tom
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Horam, John
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Rathbone, Tim


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Renton, Tim


Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman
Rhodes James, Robert


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Jessel, Toby
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rossi, Hugh


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rost, Peter


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Royle, Sir Anthony


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


King, Rt Hon Tom
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Knight, Mrs Jill
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Knox, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')






Shelton, William (Streatham)
Trippier, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Trotter, Neville


Shepherd, Richard
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Shersby, Michael
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Silvester, Fred
Viggers, Peter


Sims, Roger
Waddington, David


Skeet, T. H. H.
Wakeham, John


Smith, Sir Dudley
Waldegrave, Hon William


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)


Speed, Keith
Walker, B. (Perth)


Speller, Tony
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Spence, John
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Walters, Dennis


Sproat, Iain
Ward, John


Squire, Robin
Warren, Kenneth


Stainton, Keith
Watson, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wells, Bowen


Stanley, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Steen, Anthony
Wheeler, John


Stevens, Martin
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)
Whitney, Raymond


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wickenden, Keith


Stokes, John
Wilkinson, John


Stradling Thomas, J.
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Winterton, Nicholas


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Wolfson, Mark


Temple-Morris, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter



Thompson, Donald
Tellers for the Noes:


Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Thornton, Malcolm
Mr. David Hunt.


Townend, John (Bridlington)

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

CONSTITUTION AND PROCEDURE OF WATER AUTHORITIES

The Under Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 4, leave out from 'State' to 'authority' in line 6 and insert
'shall designate a member of each water authority as deputy chairman of that'.
This amendment meets the commitment given in Committee on 2 December to examine again the wording of clause 3(3), which would have conferred on the Secretary of State the power to designate one or more members of a water authority as a deputy chairman of the authority. As the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) said, that would have allowed the Secretary of State to designate no deputy chairman, one deputy chairman or more than one deputy chairman in different authorities. The amendment makes the position clear: the Secretary of State is to designate one, and only one, member as deputy chairman of each authority.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 29, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) In Schedule 5 to the Local Government Act 1974 (matters not subject to investigation by Local Commissioner) the following paragraph is added at the end—
6. Any action taken by a water authority (within the meaning of the Water Act 1973) otherwise than in connection with—

(a) any matter which is the subject of arrangements made with a local authority under section 15 of the Act of 1973 (arrangements for discharge of sewerage functions by other authorities); or
(b) those of their land drainage functions which are, by virtue of section 1 of the Land Drainage Act 1976, to be discharged by their regional land drainage committee."'

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 29, leave out subsection (2), and Government amendments Nos. 29, 33, 35 and 36.

Mr. Shaw: These amendments arise out of the discussion in Committee about the role of the Commissioner for Local Administration—the local ombudsman.
As I explained in Committee, the main provision of clause 1 alters the constitution of water authorities so fundamentally that it is necessary to make these changes. Whereas at present a majority of members is appointed by local authorities, in future all members will be appointed by the Secretary of State and, although there will be some local government members, they will be only a small component.
I promised the Committee that we would ensure that the local ombudsman's remit would not be removed until the new consumer consultative committees were in operation. The amendment will enable the Secretary of State to implement the changes to the local ombudsman's remit whenever he chooses, and I assure the House that we shall not end that remit until the new committees are in being.
Concern was expressed about cases where local authorities and water authorities were both engaged in the same area of business. The two cases are sewerage, where local authorities in most areas discharge the sewerage responsibilities of water authorities, and land drainage, for which both local authorities and water authorities have responsibilities. Concern was expressed that, whereas a local ombudsman might investigate a local authority's part in a particular sewerage or land drainage matter, under the Bill as it stands if he wished to continue his investigations into any part played by the water authority he would not be able to do so. We accepted that this was an anomaly and that the ombudsman should not find an investigation brought up short in this way but should be able to follow it through to a conclusion.
I am pleased to tell the House that the amendments are designed to meet the point. Their effect is simply to allow the local ombudsman to investigate a water authority in respect of any sewerage matter arising where there is a sewerage agency which accounts for about 400 local authorities out of 450 in England. The amendments also allow him to investigate a water authority in respect of any land drainage matter. In short, the amendments represent a useful improvement to the Bill brought about by our discussions in Committee, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Alec Jones: Although Government amendment No. 4 fulfils the undertaking given by the Minister in Committee, it does not meet the charge that the Bill materially reduces the rights of individuals, certainly as they were exercisable through the local government commissioner. Most Members who spoke in the Committee debate took the view that a whole range of water authority activities should remain subject to investigation by the ombudsman. Many people in this country have valued that right and if there are weaknesses in the ombudsman argument in that it relates only to maladministration, it would seem far more reasonable to improve and strengthen his role rather than to weaken it as the Bill does.
Government amendment No. 4 means that certain matters that are the joint responsibility of water authorities


and local authorities—sewerage and land drainage functions—will remain subject to investigation by the ombudsman, and we are grateful for that. Nevertheless, even with that amendment, the new subsection (2) still means that rights will be removed that individuals have enjoyed for many years. The right to put complaints to the ombudsman was given to water consumers by Parlaiment in 1974 and very few of us see any reason why it should be removed.
The fact remains that water consumers frequently feel aggrieved by the activities of these large and sometimes remote organisations. In many cases the area covered is very large, so remoteness is a major factor, and very few ordinary members of the public are aware of the membership of water authorities. An individual's right to take a complaint of maladministration to the ombudsman is one that the House ought not to throw away lightly. The importance of the ombudsman is as an organisation or person to whom people can complain. It is an independent agency and not part of the water authority set-up. It has investigative powers and power to publish a report. That is a strong defence for the individual water consumer against the much larger and more powerful water authorities.
The only defence that the Government have been able to advance is that that provision is no longer necessary with the wonderful consumer committees which will do the job that is now being done by the ombudsman. The consultative consumer committees are no replacement for the ombudsman. The independence and investigative powers of the ombudsman are its two main features. Nobody can argue that the committees have the same powers. Their independence is a myth. It depends on the water authorities. The staffing of the committees depends entirely on the water authorities. The details that their investigative powers require also depend on the water authorities. They are no replacement for the ombudsman.
That is why we believe that the powers of the ombudsman should be retained. That is the purpose of our amendment. If the Government had any concern for the right of the individual to complain against the water authorities, they would not wish to remove those powers. Rather they would wish to increase them.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5

OVERSEAS ACTIVITIES OF WATER AUTHORITIES AND STATUTORY WATER COMPANIES

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 4, leave out lines 41 and 42.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 17.

Mr. Roberts: The amendment tidies up the definition of a statutory water company.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6

ARRANGEMENTS FOR CARRYING OUT SEWERAGE FUNCTIONS

Mr. Durant: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 8 after 'to', insert '(a)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 10 at end insert—
'(b) the means proposed by any water authority for ensuring that a proper proportion of any additional work that would be undertaken by that authority as a result of the ending or, as the case may be, varying of the arrangements in question, and proposed to be carried out by direct labour, would he subject to competitive tender.'.

Mr. Durant: The sewer work that is currently carried out by local authorities is subject to the direct labour section of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. It lays down accountancy and competition requirements, including compulsory competition for all such work that is valued at more than £50,000. No such requirement applies to the water authorities, although many of them require, through their own standing orders, that there be compulsory competition for work that is valued at more than £600,000. That is clearly unsatisfactory from the point of view of competition.
The Water Bill would, to some extent, worsen the problem. After consultation, it would make it possible for agency arrangements to be wound up. That means that work that has previously been carried out by local authorities and which is subject to competition would be carried out by water authorities which are not subject to competition, except voluntarily.
The amendment would ensure that Ministers would at least satisfy themselves that the new arrangements are as effective as the existing ones. Direct labour by water authorities is a large-scale business. Ministers calculate that roughly 10 per cent. of capital expenditure is carried out by direct labour organisations. That represents about £80 million each year. In addition, an unquantifiable amount of maintenance work is carried out by direct labour organisations. That may represent some £400 million.
The Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors, which has advanced this suggestion, would like there to be complete application of the local government direct labour organisation rules to water authorities. It therefore hopes that the amendment might be accepted so that they are brought in line with local authorities, which the Government have dealt with in previous legislation.

11 pm

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) that public bodies should ensure that their work is put out to competitive tendering whenever that is appropriate. We carefully considered the merits of including a provision extending to water authorities statutory competition requirements such as those applying to local authority direct labour organisations, including their sewerage activities. We decided on balance against that course. However, we have agreed with water authority chairmen that a code of practice will be drawn up to ensure adequate competition.
My hon. Friend's amendments do not deal directly with the subject but seek to make it a factor that the Secretary of State must take into account in deciding appeals. While it may be important in deciding the balance of costs between a water authority and a local authority, I do not believe it right to single it out among all the other relevant factors to be taken into account. I ask my how Friend to accept that the Government are committed to ensuring competition where it is sensible, and to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Durant: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 12, in page 5, line 36, leave out 'further'.

No. 14, in page 6, line 19, leave out 'or further report'. No. 15, in page 6, line 23, at end insert—
'(8A) In subsection (1) above "consumers" include persons who use or are likely to use, for the purposes of recreation, any water or land associated with water in respect of which the water authority in question are under the duty imposed by section 20 above.'.—[Mr. Wyn Roberts.]

Clause 8

REPEAL OF WATER CHARGES EQUALISATION ACT 1977

Mr. Alec Jones: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 6, line 32, at end insert—
'(c) that adequate arrangements have been made to ensure that non-metered water consumers pay reasonably comparable rates for their water supply.'.
I am sure that the amendment was expected by hon. Members on both sides of the House following our debate in Committee and the miserable response from the Under-Secretary of State for Wales.
Few people can deny that there is a sense of unfairness—not only in Wales but throughout Britain—about the system of charging for water supplies. That sense of unfairness has, as I am sure the Under-Secretary will willingly concede, reached the point of outrage in Wales. I gave figures in Committee that showed the wide disparity of water charges in Wales compared with the England and Wales average. It has been shown consistently that the charges for water in Wales have been about twice the average charge for England and Wales combined.
It is not only a question of being unfair to Welsh water consumers. If the system continues, it will be a threat to the water industry and the planning and sensible use of vital and essential natural resources. If there is a lesson to be learnt, it should be from the 1976 drought. There are occasions, and that was one, when we need to be able to transfer water from areas of plenty to areas of shortage. It was our experience then that if the drought had continued much longer the changes in the distribution of water to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom had enough would have been considerable indeed.
If the free transfer is necessary—I believe and accept that it is—it depends upon a national policy. With the abolition of the National Water Council it is difficult to envisage how that will be achieved under the Government's proposals. It also depends upon cooperation between water authorities and on the good will of those who live in areas that have abundant water supplies. In Wales, that good will has been deliberately dissipated by the Government through their decision to abolish the Water Charges Equalisation Act 1977 and through the announcement by the Under-Secretary of State in Committee that the Government found it impossible to devise a fair equalisation scheme. As that good will is dissipated, so the threat to the free transfer of water grows.
I do not condone the recent action by a minority in Wales, but the Government have themselves to blame for many of the problems that are developing there. The Government have consistently, not only through the Welsh Office but through other Departments, admitted that there

is a problem. The newly appointed Secretary of State told the Tory party conference in 1980 that he recognised the unfairness under the present charging system and that the Government intended to find a fairer scheme. Nothing has been done about that.
The Secretary of State for Wales told the Welsh Grand Committee in July 1979 that water authorities were an issue of major current concern in Wales. It was of such major current concern that even now, in 1983, the Government have not only managed to do nothing about the matter but have made the position infinitely worse. Not only have they failed to remedy the defects which they admit exist but they have made the position worse by clause 8, which repeals the Water Charges Equalisation Act 1977.
Many odd reasons are given as to why the Government can do nothing. Water is now apparently considered to be an industry. I shall argue that point, which may be theoretical, but both gas and electricity are considered as industries and we do not see the wide disparity of charges for those utilities that we do for water. If one took the opposite view and said that water was more of a service than an industry, one could equally say that we did not have the same wide disparity of charges between services such as the Post Office and British Telecommunications.
If it is the correct way of charging to ensure that, inside the boundaries of each water authority, water equalisation shall prevail, why is it wrong to have no system of equalisation across the boundaries between each water authority?
I admitted in Committee—I have said it many times —that when we introduced the Water Charges Equalisation Act 1977 we did not expect it to last for ever. We believed that its effects and the benefits that accrued to the Welsh water authority and to other authorities would wear off in time. However, the Act should be repealed only if the Secretary of State is satisfied that reasonably comparable rates are applied for non-metered water supplies. That is not an outrageous suggestion. British people, wherever they live, as equal citizens, should have largely equitable charges for essential services such as gas, electricity, postal services or water.
The present charges in Wales are far from reasonable and certainly far from comparable. That is not because of any inefficiency on the part of the Welsh water authority.
I notice that in Committee the Under-Secretary said that a new measure to equalise water charges would tend to encourage the wasteful use of resources and lead the water authorities to be less efficient than they would otherwise be.
The high charges for domestic consumers in Wales have nothing to do with any inefficiency by the Welsh water authority, but are due to the higher costs of distribution in Wales, which are a factor of geography and little or nothing else. That was something that came out very strongly in the report of the Daniel committee, set up by the previous Government, which led to the Water Equalisation Act.
Comments have been made on the problem in Wales. Welsh Members will be aware of the role played by Mr. Haydn Rees, who had been the chairman of the Welsh water authority and the man who had had considerable experience in local government and in public life in Wales. The last annual report issued by the Welsh water authority when Mr Rees was the chairman stated:


As I have publicly stated on several occasions, whatever decision is reached I personally believe that sooner or later—and the sooner the better—our legislators will have to realise that the water services industry is the only important public utility service that does not have either a common base charge or an equalisation of charges. That this, the most important, civilised and civilising of all the public services should not have similar treatment is, I believe, unacceptable and inequitable to the people in the area in which we serve.
It is true that the present system of charging in Wales is inequitable; because it is inequitable, it is unacceptable.
It is no good the Under-Secretary or anyone else suggesting that there is no alternative. A variety of alternatives have been put forward at various times.
One alternative would have been to allow the Welsh water authority to charge more for the water which is exported. That was turned down by the Government. Another alternative would be a return to the principles, or something like them, of the Water Equalisation Act. That has been turned down by the Government. Another alternative would have been rebates. An amendment to that effect was tabled, but unfortunately was not called. The fourth alternative is a form of capital debt write-off.
It is not true that there are no alternatives. The alternatives may not be acceptable or pleasant to the Government, but there are ways if the Government were to try to meet what they genuinely accept to be a problem in Wales—the unacceptable and inequitable nature of water charges.
Despite all the crocodile tears of the Under-Secretary, I recall that in July 1979 the Secretary of State for Wales admitted in the Welsh Grand Committee that water charges in Wales were a major current problem. Nothing has been done by the Government.
The majority of the people in Wales are far more concerned with the level of charges than they are with the structure, and now find that a new quango has been devised in total contradiction to the Minister's views on quangos when he sat on Opposition Benches.
Not only has nothing been done by this Government, but nothing will be done for Wales and for water consumers in Wales as long as we have a Government of this persuasion. When we return to office, a Labour Government will remove this injustice. We will restore a water equalisation scheme so that water charges, like gas, electricity and the postal service, are broadly in line throughout the United Kingdom. By doing that, we shall deal fairly and justly not only with Welsh water consumers but with water consumers throughout the United Kingdom and at the same time safeguard the efficient use of the nation's water supply.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I always like to follow the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones). I should like to ask what he will do if ever the Labour Party is returned to power. Although he indulged in a clear and specific condemnation of the negation enshrined in the clause, in that it destroys any residual legislation that would make for equalisation, he was unable to say that the next Labour Government will legislate for complete equalisation on water charges, at least throughout England and Wales.
I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give that assurance, because there has been speculation in the press and elsewhere that the Labour Party in England is trying to develop a policy to return the water service to local

government. That would enable the water service to be maintained as part of the local government system and, therefore, subject to the rate support grant.
There have been other attempts within the Labour Party at some kind of regional policy, including the idea of elected regional tiers, I am not sure where that proposal now stands, but that would create another option whereby it might be possible to have democratically elected regional tiers of government that could take control of the water industry regionally. There could then be equitable redistribution of both water and its costs.
I advance those two propositions for the right hon. Member for Rhondda to think about, and if he wishes to intervene in my brief speech, I shall be happy to give way.
On Second Reading I tried to set out some of the options then available to the Government. Since then, we have had another negation—the announcement of nothing by the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales, who have thrown the ball back to the Welsh water authority, the Severn/Trent water authority and the North-West water authority. If accepted, the amendment would open up a number of alternatives. As I have just said, it would return control of water to local government, therby ensuring that the water service could be subject to RSG as a form of redistribution of costs and benefits of supply.
Another option is complete equalisation. I am certain that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales is an avid viewer of the Welsh channel four. He will have seen on "Y Byd ar Bedwar", "The World on 4", the current affairs programme produced by HTV, the new chairman of the Welsh water authority declare in favour of equalisation. To the extent that he can indicate a policy option, he did so. He referred to the invidious position between different utilities, whereby there is almost complete equalisation among utility charges such as gas and electricity but no such equality between water charges. That clearly shows where he stands and where his authority would stand.
The attempt to secure a higher level of return from the Severn-Trent water authority and the North-West water authority was the only option available in the context of policy laid down by the Government. The failure of the Government to adjudicate clearly as between Severn-Trent water authority, the North-West water authority and the Welsh water authority, as they had a responsibility to do, and the throwing of the whole issue back to the Welsh water authority is an indication that the Government are prepared to do precisely what I alleged at Second Reading, to regard the different level of charge between Wales and the regions in England which are served from Welsh reservoirs as being legitimate and acceptable.
When the Prime Minister decides to call the election—no doubt it will be her decision and hers alone as in so many other things with this Government—thousands of Welsh consumers will respond by rejecting a party that is prepared to allow those inequitable differentials to remain.
The other option is to allow a commercial free-for-all in water transference. Many Welsh domestic consumers will have seen with interest the recent proposal to start exporting United Kingdom water to Arab countries at a commercial rate. The Welsh water authority and many consumers in Wales will have seen what the new market value of water is. If the Government are committed, as they are in most areas of their policy, to an out-and-out market value and ensuring a full commercial return, no doubt they will be prepared to allow the Welsh water


authority, if it wishes, to go to the Severn-Trent water authority and demand the levels of water charges that are likely to be offered commercially by those who want to import water from the United Kingdom.
The fact that this amendment is likely to be rejected by the Government shows that they are not prepared to meet the real differential. They are prepared to tolerate a situation whereby Welsh consumers are unfairly exploited. For the historical, emotional and, indeed, justifiable reasons of community resentment that I set out on Second Reading, it is reprehensible that the Government should take this view.
It is as a direct result of Government policy that many consumers in Wales are either unable or unwilling to pay the inflated water charges. A community, or individuals, resort to forms of direct action only when it is apparent that a constitutional response on the part of Government is not forthcoming. It is regrettable in the view of the Government that people should resort to forms of direct action, including the withholding of payments. I take the view that when a Government who have no mandate in Wales and who clearly do not represent the interests of the majority of the Welsh people are not prepared to respond sympathetically—

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is the hon. Member seriously contending that if the views that he expresses are not immediately translated into action by the Government, even though his views are supported by an insignificant minority of the people in Wales, there is any justification whatever for breaking the law? If so, then he has to face up to the consequences that others may take it into their heads to defy legislation requiring the teaching of Welsh in schools, which is very much resented by the English majority in a great many regions. It is only because the people of Wales on the whole are law-abiding that there has been such progress in the teaching of Welsh in the schools.

Mr. Thomas: I am aware that this is not a debate on the teaching of Welsh. However, one local authority in Wales is, I believe, in serious breach of the law and so far the Department responsible has not acted.
However, I understand from the figures made available that about 20,000 people in Wales have not paid their water bills this year in full. That shows that at least a significant proportion of the population feels strongly about the issue. I tried to say that of course there was in general an obligation on members of the community to abide by that community's laws. There is also an obligation on the authority in a community to be responsive towards minority demands. The test of a democracy—whether in the United Kingdom or anywhere else—is the extent to which it can maintain the will of the majority while ensuring that the rights of minority groups and regions are respected.
In that sense, the Government should reconsider their view. Otherwise, it will serve only further to alienate water consumers in Wales and will increase exploitation of Welsh resources by those regions outside Wales that take advantage of them. I do not want law-breaking campaigns to increase. However, when a Government refuse to respond to the demands of consumers and are unable to adjudicate in regional conflicts, minorities that feel hard-pressed by the level of wather charges will want

to assert their position. It is not as if this is a new issue. It has been controversial for as long as I and most hon. Members can remember.
The issue is being scrutinised by the Welsh Affairs Committee. Those of us who are not members of that Committee regret that the report has not yet been forthcoming. It would not be in order to comment on that now, but press reports suggest that this is the result of a difference of opinion between Conservative and Opposition Members on the Committee. We assume that the Committee would adopt a slightly more critical line than the Welsh Office or its supporters are prepared to accept. As a member of another Select Committee, I regret that the deliberations of that Select Committee should be held back for that reason. The Select Committee's report was seen in Wales as an opportunity to scrutinise an area of policy and to make constructive recommendations for ending the conflict between domestic consumers and the regions outside Wales that take advantage of our water resources.
This issue will not go away. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Minister wishes to intervene. I see that he cannot take it. The issue of the water supply and natural resources in Wales and their use by outside regions, has been controversial for several years. Those domestic consumers who are unable or unwilling to pay the high water charges and the further increases likely next year, will not give up easily. They feel strongly about the way in which Welsh resources are exploited. I am sure that the Government are only creating opposition and increasing the determination of consumers in Wales to obtain justice.
Clearly, the Government will not accept the amendment. I can tell that by the expression on the Minister's face. However, if he rejects it, I hope that he will put forward cogent arguments to the Welsh electorate, telling us why we should continue to suffer such high charges.

Mr. Wigley: The cogent argument, imposed on the Minister by the Secretary of State, and which he has been forced to use, is that there are 11 marginal seats in the area of the Severn-Trent authority. In an election year, that dominates the Government's thinking.

Mr. Thomas: I am sure that my hon. Friend is, in this case, as in many other cases—although perhaps not always—right. He has pointed out that political issues affect the Government's decisions. I do not want to anticipate what may emerge later this week, but Governments are sensitive on such matters whether they concern keeping open railway lines in marginal Welsh constituencies, or water supplies. Therefore, a marginally higher charge to the consumers of water in regions that take advantage of Welsh resources would be sufficient to persuade the Government not to equalise or to attempt to provide some recompense. That is another example of the way in which the Government treat Wales. They have disregarded Welsh opinion in their economic and social policies and are now doing so in their environmental and natural resources policies.
That is not surprising because the Government have no mandate in Wales and they are clearly prepared to sell the needs of Wales down the river, as it were. In this case it is down a river regulated by reservoirs built in Wales, the advantages of which accrue to consumers outside Wales.
We have recently seen another graphic instance of the way in which differential water charges operate in a border village between Clwyd and Cheshire. I congratulate those people who found themselves back in the area of the Cheshire water undertaking, and who therefore had cheaper water rates. However, I remind them that one day they will be back in Wales and we hope that that will be at a time when water rates between the north-west, Chester, and Wales are equalised so that they will not have to pay more.
I press the Minister to give some rational response and to set out what options he thinks the Welsh water authority can realistically take in its negotiations with the Severn/Trent and the North-West water authorities to try to obtain a more equitable level of charges and to ensure that the major consumers of Welsh water outside Wales make some recompense to lower the charges to non-metered water consumers in Wales.
I hope that the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) will join my hon. Friends in voting for the amendment. It is important that we should show the Welsh people that there are strongly held views on this and that the Government are deliberately resisting an attempt to bring equality to Welsh domestic water consumers.

Mr. Ioan Evans: I support what my right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) has said about this amendment. This is a deplorable Bill. We have come to it after the reorganisation in the Water Act 1973 by a Conservative Government, who I think it is now agreed did not do a good job on that occasion. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend said that it will be a high priority for the next Labour Government to amend the damage that the Bill will inflict on the British water industry. It is significant that a Water Act was rushed through the House in 1973, prior to the 1974 election, and now we shall have the 1983 Bill which might well lead to an election in 1983 or 1984.
The amendment relates to clause 8, which is one of the worst features of the Bill for Wales. The people of Wales would have wished the Government to address themselves to the injustice in the differentiation between the water charges in different parts of the United Kingdom. There is no justification for it. We are given no justification by the Government for those differences.
Under the Bill the regions are allowed to have a system of equalisation. Within the Welsh water authority the people in the urban areas pay towards the cost of distributing water to the country areas. However, because of the geology and demography of Wales there is an added cost in the distribution of water compared with, for example, the city of Birmingham, which is a comparatively small area where distribution costs are not great. Therefore, it is possible for the cost of distributions in one part of the United Kingdom to be far less than those in another part.
Britain does not have a system in which it costs more to post a letter in the country than from one part of London to another. The Government do not seem to realise the injustice of people being compelled to pay more for their water because they live in a certain part of the United Kingdom. Matters have been made worse. When the water industry was closely linked to local authorities, and people paid one rate that covered the local authority rate and the water rate, if they were in financial difficulties or had small means, that was taken into account, and they had a

rebate that covered both water and local authority services. The present rating system is not just. The payment for services according to the size of one's property is something that a future Government will have to examine.
There is injustice in the present system under which the local authority and water rates have been separated. Elderly people who live in large properties are able to obtain a rate rebate from the local authority if their means are small. But they have no water rate rebate. It is not how much water is consumed in the house that determines the water rate; it is determined by the size of the house. One could have two houses of equal size, in one of which an elderly person of small means has to pay the same rate as the family next door with seven or eight earners.
The injustice is that this system varies between one part of the country and another. Wales has a large rainfall, and supplies water not only to Wales but over the border, but water is cheaper over the border. The Leader of the House is present. His is an area that benefits from this system. Why is it allowed? How can one justify the fact that the water that comes from Wales can be obtained by his constituents at far less cost than it can be by the people of Wales?
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) about taking the law into one's own hands. That is not the answer. The answer is in the ballot box, which will be available in the not-too-distant future. People must exercise their right to vote. If the Government will not address themselves to the serious problems of the water rates, as they are not doing in the Bill, we have to seek democratic ways to bring about democratic changes.

Mr. Wigley: The hon. Gentleman rightly says that we shall soon have the ballot box as a means of expressing our opinion. If the Labour Party is elected at that election, can he give a pledge that it will achieve what the previous Labour Government did not achieve—equalisation of water charges?

Mr. Evans: My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) has given certain commitments.
I should go further than equalisation. Water is an essential service. We did not have a local rate for the Falkland Islands expedition. The money came from taxation.
Increasingly there should be an Exchequer contribution to the water industry. It is increasingly through taxation that we should pay for our water service rather than by the iniquitous method of people paying according to the size of accommodation in which they live. It is scandalous that a family in a house where an additional room has been built should have to pay higher water rates. Instead of perpetuating the situation, the Government should accept this modest amendment. The Opposition tried in Committee to bring about more fundamental change.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is the hon. Gentleman making a bid for the votes of the landlords in my constituency? I am sure that Lord Longford would be delighted to hear that he will be required to pay the same water charges as the tenant of a modest semi-detached council house.

Mr. Evans: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard me suggest that payment should be based on taxation. It would be payment from each according to his ability and to each according to his needs.

Mr. Wigley: A wealth tax, not a Welsh tax.

Mr. Evans: That is right. There should be a tax on wealth rather than a tax on the Welsh. This is a tax on the people of Wales. They have to pay more for water that comes from their area than people in other areas. I have no wish to quarrel with the people of Birmingham. Many Welsh people living in Birmingham moved there at the time of the last depression. Such a move cannot be made now because the depression even affects Birmingham. It is necessary to deal with the matter through the Exchequer. I hope that the next Labour Government will give it priority.
Unfortunately, the 1973 Act was a shambles. However, the view was taken that, following reorganisation, it would be impossible then to dig up the roots. That explains why there has been delay. The mistakes of the previous Conservative Government in local government, the Health Service and the water industry are known. Now that they have come back to their own problems, their answers are worse than the previous ones. Their solutions are worse than the problems themselves.
We should move to greater equalisation. Because of the recession, the Welsh water industry has lost £6 million. The sum of £3 million has been taken by the Government. It is no good Ministers saying that the Water Charges Equalisation Act did not achieve much. It might not have achieved as much as it should have done, but it has proved better than what is now happening.
I hope that the Government will agree to a concession to deal with an issue that is not a minority problem in Wales. It concerns the vast majority of people. There is deep anxiety in Wales which cuts across party political boundaries. People of all political persuasions cannot understand the injustice that has been imposed.

Mr. Geraint Howells (Cardigan): The hon. Gentleman said that he did not agree with the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr Thomas) about equalisation charges. He said that he would go a little further. He suggested that he would go for greater equalisation. Will he clarify what he means by "greater equalisation"?

Mr. Evans: Instead of equalising the existing rate between different regions in Wales and the rest of England, we should relate it to the tax that people pay. There is no boundary. One pays tax according to one's income. The Government should pay a greater contribution from their revenue. That form of equalisation would make a better and more just system than comparing the water rates paid in, for instance, the Severn/Trent area or the Thames area with other areas. We need to tackle the problem in a more fundamental way.

Mr. Ogden: The hon. Gentleman is saying that the amount of money that is paid in the present form of water rates should be paid in local income tax, according to a person's income tax.

Mr. Evans: Nationally.

Mr. Ogden: Yes. But will he follow it through? It would be strange if the money now paid in water rates were paid as an income tax, a poll tax, but the rates themselves remained on the old basis of rateable value. Would that not be a contradiction?

Mr. Evans: As I said earlier, we should look at the iniquitous rate system. The water rate and the local authority rate, which originally were one rate, have now

been separated. The system was unjust before, but now it is even more unjust. There should be a check on local authority spending. We have to think again about the formula whereby the Exchequer makes a certain contribution and the local authority makes a contribution. People talk about abolishing local authority rates, but it is not easy.
The only argument for water rates is that if people pay for water it inhibits people from wasting it. That is not so. People have water on a meter. Whether or not they pay a water rate does not conserve water, unlike electricity, gas, or other forms of energy, where consumers pay a price to equate supply and demand, and make sure that they do not waste it. People can waste water and pay lower water rates than people who do not waste water. So that argument falls by the wayside.
Last winter people were deprived of water and could not use the toilets. That makes one realise how important water is. In my opinion, it should be made free, and if it were free, we should have to move away from the existing water rate system.
We must look at the matter in a more fundamental manner. Instead of doing that, the Government have made a fundamental mistake in removing the compensation that was introduced in an attempt to deal with the injustice between Wales and the other regions of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: It is abundantly clear that there is no lack of variety of solutions to equalisation on the Opposition Benches. We have had a tremendous variety of solutions and clearly there is no unanimity on the Opposition Benches about which of the different solutions is most applicable. The pledge of the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) that a future Labour Government will equalise does not sound convincing, especially if the amendment is the best attempt that the Opposition can make to date at achieving equalisation. It certainly represents an attempt at introducing back-door equalisation.
Clause 8 is intended to repeal the Water Charges Equalisation Act 1977. The scheme established by that Act was clearly the best scheme that the Labour Administration could devise. However, we must not forget that it was thoroughly unsatisfactory. In the third year of its operation it had the effect of moving the average bills of unmeasured consumers 42 per cent. further away from the national average.
Equalisation, by its very nature, must penalise some areas, and it could certainly inhibit efficiency and distort investment decisions. We do not believe that the answer lies in central Government setting the level of charges for non-metered water supply. A standard national price implies subsidy of some areas by others. Those who advocate subsidy must decide where it will end. Is it to end with water charges or will it extend to general rates?
The Government believe that the right solution—it is in the Bill—is for the Welsh water authority and the regional water authorities to keep their charges under control through greater efficiency. It has been alleged that we have done nothing, but we have changed the structure and organisation of the Welsh water authority to achieve the greater efficiency that we believe is the best means to reduce water rates and to keep the level of rates as low as we can.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: What is the effect on individual domestic consumers of the alleged efficiency that the hon. Gentleman has established and what contribution has it made to reducing water charges and introducing greater equality between English regions and Wales?

Mr. Roberts: The new authority came into existence as recently as 1 April 1982. It has barely had an opportunity to prove its mettle. We expect considerable progress to be made by the new business-like and compact authority that we have installed in Brecon. We expect rather greater financial gains by the new authority than would have been achieved had my right hon. Friend determined in favour of the Welsh water authority and against the Severn Trent and North-West water authorities.
We have made it clear during our debates that had my right hon. Friends decided in favour of the Welsh water authority and granted its claim in full against the other authorities, the effect would have been a reduction of £1 in the average Welsh domestic bill this year of £79.
I say to the hon. Members for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) and Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) that of course water is an emotional issue in Wales, but no one has done more than they have to stir up emotions and to encourage Welsh people not to pay their water bills. That means that an additional cost falls on those who pay their bills because money has to be borrowed by the Welsh water authority and the interest on that has to be paid by the consumers.
Let us put the matter into perspective. We acknowledge that water is an emotive issue in Wales. It is the most outworn cliché in our political vocabulary, but the fact is that we are not top of the league with regard to the average domestic bill. Two out of the 10 water authorities have higher average charges then we have. There are higher average charges in Anglia and the south-west region in the current year.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that if he and his colleagues had fought and won the battle to get the £4 million for Wales, albeit only £4 million, the ratepayers in Wales would have had a reduction this year as opposed to the increase that he says is happening because of the campaign that is being waged, minimal though that increase may be? Why did the Minister's Department take 15 months to reach the decision? When he said last year that the Government were willing to move away from the no-profit, no-loss conception, why does he now adhere to it? Will he admit that his Department has suffered defeat at the hands of the Department of the Environment?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman has not studied the decision and the way in which the decision was arrived at by my right hon. Friends. He will be aware that that was the first determination of its kind. He will be aware that a procedure had to be devised. He will be aware that my right hon. Friends could decide only upon the submission made to them by the Welsh water authority, as commented upon by the other two authorities. He should also be aware that an application was made by the new Welsh authority that came into operation last April to change and add to the submission that was made by its predecessor. That is why it took a certain amount of time to reach the decision.
I have stressed that my right hon. Friends could come to a decision only on the submission that was made to them. Therefore, there is no sense in which my right hon. Friends were defeated. I have said that the no-profit, no-loss principle has been operated by successive

Governments in the past, including this Government. It is a clear principle, upon which my right hon. Friends decided to base their determination.
The prime purpose of the Bill is to allow water authorities to exercise better control over the management of their activities. That point has not been fully appreciated, even now, on Report.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Will the Minister tell the House and the people of Wales whether it is his view that people living in Wales should pay higher rates than people living in Birmingham and London?

12 midnight

Mr. Roberts: It is clear that in practice the rates vary in different parts of the country. It is in the essence of the Bill to allow variable rates. I have explained that Wales is third from the top of the league. If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether I am happy with that position, I have made it clear that we were the first to go in for structural reorganisation to promote efficiency in the Welsh water authority. The hon. Gentleman should not forget that the authority has considerable business, with a revenue income of well over £150 million per year. We believe that the authority can be run more efficiently in the future, that savings can be achieved and that that is the way to keep charges to consumers down.

Mr. Wigley: rose—

Mr. Roberts: As I have said before, no one has come up with a scheme for the equalisation of water charges that does not in some way inhibit good cost control. The right hon. Member for Rhondda is delightfully vague in his amendment about what is "reasonably comparable". The amendment would completely nullify clause 8 and I must ask the House to reject it.

Mr. Alec Jones: I have never heard such a nonsensical and ridiculous reply. In view of the stupid nature of the Minister's reply, I am so full of contempt that I shall not even bother to vote on the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it your pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn?

Mr. Alec Jones: Yes.

Mr. Wigley: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was asking the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) whether he wished to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do we not have the right to vote on the motion before the House? We wish to vote in favour of the amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I do not have the agreement of the House, I shall have to put the question on the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 16, Noes 160.

Division No. 44]
[12 midnight


AYES


Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)
Howells, Geraint


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Canavan, Dennis
Ogden, Eric


Cryer, Bob
Parry, Robert


Dixon, Donald
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hardy, Peter
Skinner, Dennis


Home Robertson, John
Spearing, Nigel






Steel, Rt Hon David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Whitehead, Phillip
Mr. D. E. Thomas and



Mr. Dafydd Wigley.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith


Ancram, Michael
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Aspinwall, Jack
King, Rt Hon Tom


Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Lamont, Norman


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Lang, Ian


Banks, Robert
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Bendall, Vivian
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Loveridge, John


Best, Keith
Lyell, Nicholas


Bevan, David Gilroy
McCrindle, Robert


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Macfarlane, Neil


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
MacGregor, John


Blackburn, John
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Blaker, Peter
Marten, Rt Hon Neil


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Mates, Michael


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Mather, Carol


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Mayhew, Patrick


Bright, Graham
Mellor, David


Brinton, Tim
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Moate, Roger


Browne, John (Winchester)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Murphy, Christopher


Bryan, Sir Paul
Myles, David


Butcher, John
Neale, Gerrard


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Nelson, Anthony


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Neubert, Michael


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Osborn, John


Churchill, W. S.
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Clegg, Sir Walter
Patten, John (Oxford)


Cockeram, Eric
Pattie, Geoffrey


Cope, John
Pawsey, James


Dickens, Geoffrey
Percival, Sir Ian


Dorrell, Stephen
Pollock, Alexander


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Proctor, K. Harvey


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Renton, Tim


Durant, Tony
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Eyre, Reginald
Rossi, Hugh


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Fox, Marcus
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Shersby, Michael


Goodlad, Alastair
Silvester, Fred


Gow, Ian
Smith, Sir Dudley


Gray, Rt Hon Hamish
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Greenway, Harry
Speller, Tony


Grieve, Percy
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)
Squire, Robin


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Stainton, Keith


Grist, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Gummer, John Selwyn
Stanley, John


Hamilton, Hon A.
Stevens, Martin


Hampson, Dr Keith
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Hawkins, Sir Paul
Stokes, John


Heddle, John
Stradling Thomas, J.


Henderson, Barry
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Thompson, Donald


Hooson, Tom
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Trippier, David


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Viggers, Peter


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Waddington, David


Irvine, Rt Hon Bryant Godman
Waldegrave, Hon William


Jessel, Toby
Walker, B. (Perth)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Waller, Gary





Ward, John
Wolfson, Mark


Watson, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wells, Bowen
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wells, John (Maidstone)



Wheeler, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Wilkinson, John
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Williams, D.(Montgomery)
Mr. John Major.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: After that startling Division result, which clearly showed that the policy of the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) does not command the full support of the Opposition, I hope that we can deal quickly with the next amendments.

Clause 10

INTERPRETATION

Amendment made: No. 17, in page 7, line 32, after '1973,', insert
'"statutory water company" has the same meaning as in the principal Act,'.—[Mr. Wyn Roberts.]

Clause 11

SHORT TITLE AND COMMENCEMENT, ETC.

Amendments made: No. 18, in page 8, line 1, leave out
'This subsection and subsection (5) below and'.

No. 19, in page 8, line 3, at end insert—
'(aa) sections 9 and 10;
(ab) this section, except subsections (2) and (3);'.

No. 20, in page 8, line 5, after 'Schedule 3', insert
'and subsection (2) of this section so far as relating to that paragraph'.

No. 21, in page 8, line 8, after '1982', insert
'and subsection (3) of this section so far as relating to that revocation'.

No. 22, in page 8, line 21, after '3', insert
'(1) and (3) to (5)'.

No. 23, in page 8, leave out lines 24 to 34 and insert
'extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland and any repeal by Schedule 4 to this Act of an enactment which extends to Scotland or Northern Ireland has the same extent as that enactment, but otherwise this Act extends to England and Wales only.'—[Mr. Wyn Roberts.]

Schedule 2

PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE DISSOLUTION OF NATIONAL WATER COUNCIL AND WATER SPACE AMENITY COMMISSION

Amendments made: No. 24, in page 13, leave out lines 16 to 18.

No. 25, in page 15, line 26, at end insert—
'(3A) The Secretary of State shall, as soon as possible after determining the amount of any allowances payable under subparagraph (3) above, lay a statement of his determination before each House of Parliament.'. — [Mr. Wyn Roberts.]

Schedule 3

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 16, line 5, at end insert—

'Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 (c.51)

3A.—(1) In section 28 of the Salmon and Freshwater


Fisheries Act 1975 (general powers and duties of water authorities in relation to fisheries) after subsection (2) there is inserted the following subsection—
(2A) A water authority may pay to any member of an advisory committee established by it in accordance with paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above such allowances as may be determined by the Minister with the consent of the Treasury.".
(2) In section 41 of that Act (interpretation) after subsection (2) there is inserted the following subsection—
(2A) In section 28(2A) above, the reference to the Minister shall be construed in relation to the Welsh Water Authority, as a reference to the Secretary of State.".'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 28.

Mr. Roberts: This amendment preserves a power for water authorities to pay allowances to members of their fishery advisory committees and their land drainage committees. At present, the power to pay allowances to members of water authorities' committees derives from section 177(1)(a) of the Local Government Act 1972. That section will be repealed by this Bill because, in future, Ministers will have the power under paragraph 4 of schedule 1 to determine the pay and allowances that water authorities make to their members. However, we must preserve the power to pay allowances to members of the statutory fishery advisory committees and land drainage committees, and that is the purpose of the amendments.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Amendment No. 26 enables water authorities to pay members of advisory committees appointed under section 28(1)(b) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. That section places a duty on water authorities
to establish advisory committees of persons who appear to them to be interested in any such fisheries in that area and consult them as to the manner in which the authority are to discharge their duty under paragraph (a) above.
As the Under-Secretary of State said, at present payments are made under local government legislation. But who is paying? The ratepayers, in the environmental service charges paid to the water authorities, are now paying those bills. I question whether ratepayers, through water rate services charges, should be held responsible for the payments. They are funding a service to support the stretches of water that contain salmon that, in my county, are mainly owned by a select group. Riparian owners of salmon stretches do very well under the current arrangements. The only way to measure how well they do is either to inspect their revenue returns, which we cannot do, or to examine the water authority returns that they are required to submit under schedule 3 of the 1975 Act. The schedule states:
Requiring persons fishing for salmon, trout or freshwater fish to send to the water authority returns, in such form, giving such particulars and at such times as may be specified in the bye laws, of any such fish which they have taken, or a statement that they have taken no such fish.
However, those returns can often be falsified. I have evidence from my constituency of alleged inaccuracies in returns. I choose my words carefully. Those allegations are supported by a sworn affidavit, which is in my possession. Falsification or inaccuracy in returns means that the revenue returns to the Inland Revenue may also be inaccurate. Falsification or inaccuracy mean that water authorities cannot assess accurately the possibility for increased riparian revenues. Furthermore, they cannot possibly assess the increased hatchery costs that they must

pay, which equally, although they are no part of this amendment, should not fall entirely to the environmental service charges paid to water authorities.
I recently wrote to the North-West water authority about the charges that we are discussing in this amendment, in so far as they are charges that water authorities will have to pay out of the environmental service charges that they levy on all ratepayers. In the reply I received from the North-West water authority, it thanked me for my letter about charges paid to the authority by riparian owners. It added:
Fishing rights are not subject to water supply and sewerage charges. However, because they have a rateable value, their rateable occupiers must pay the environmental services charge to the Authority.
This annual charge is small (currently 0·5p per £ of rateable value) and as we do not issue bills for less than £1 only 33 bills totalling £69·16p were issued this year in respect of fishing rights on rivers in our Northern Division. A further 172 bills for under £1 and totalling £65·59p were not sent. Some £0·4 million of the total estimated expenditure of £1·4 on fisheries this year (including £0·5 for enforcement and protection) will be met from charges. The balance is made up from the environmental services charge which also funds water quality, pollution prevention and recreation and amenity services.
Most of the income from fisheries charges is obtained from licence fees. Other sources, i.e. rents, sales of fish and sales of fishing guides total only £13,000 per annum.
The letter then goes on to say that the authority cannot apportion licence income to individual rivers.
A substantial deficit is being picked up by the public purse. This amendment seeks further to increase that deficit. I think it is of importance to the House that we consider that matter. If we consider the real figures as they affect West Cumbria we find that they include to some extent—allowing for the fact that current local government legislation already provides for some payment and this is simply a switch from one legislative arrangement to another—the current charges to the water authority in my constituency, are now £223,165 for the year 1982ߝ1983.
The latest figure for revenue from fishermen and from riparian owners in that same area was for the year 1981. It was only £14,390, including rod licences and fixed engine licence payments to the water authority. Expenditure exceeds receipts by 15 times, and yet this Government are still seeking to insert in the form of this amendment what some may say is an additional charge on the water authority.
My case is simple. With that level of deficit, and with that type of multiplier in terms of costs to the water authorities arising from receipts from the riparian owners and other sources of moneys, the Government should increasingly ensure that riparian owners pay a far greater share of the costs of water authorities. I would have thought that such a suggestion would have appealed to the Government, in as much as it would provide for a reduction in public expenditure and a reduction in the environmental service charges paid by constituents throughout the North-West region.
However, in looking at this matter, the Government have a duty to ensure that the returns made to the North-West water authority by riparian rights owners within that area are accurate.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The hon. Gentleman clearly understands that the situation varies between different water authority regions. He has referred specifically to the north-western area. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be looking into his allegation.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this amendment does not impose any additional charge. It simply makes it clear that the determination of allowances is to be by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in respect of English water authorities and the Secretary of State for Wales in respect of the Welsh water authority.
I can also add that in determining licence fees the costs involved with fisheries and so on are taken into account.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 27, in page 16, line 8 after 'regional', insert 'and'.

No. 28, in page 16, line 27 at end insert—
'(2A) A water authority may pay to any person who, not being a member of the authority, is a member of their regional land drainage committee or of one of their local land drainage committees such allowances as may be determined by the appropriate Minister with the consent of the Treasury.'.

No. 29, in page 17, line 42, at end insert—
'8. The amendment of Schedule 5 to the Local Government Act 1974 made by section 1(2) of this Act shall not affect the operation of that Act in relation to any complaint entertained by a Local Commissioner before the commencement of section 1(2).'.

No. 30, in page 17, line 42, at end insert—
'9. In any case where—

(a) the Treasury have given a guarantee under paragraph 36(1) of Schedule 3 to the principal Act in respect of any sum borrowed by the Council; and
(b) any liability of the Council relating to repayment of the principal of, or payment of interest on, the sum so borrowed (or any part of that sum) has become a liability of one or more water authorities whether by virtue of an order under section 3(4) of this Act or otherwise;

paragraph 36(1) of Schedule 3 shall have effect as if it empowered the Treasury to give a new guarantee in respect of that liability.'.—[Mr. Wyn Roberts.]

Schedule 4

REPEALS AND REVOCATIONS

Amendments made: No. 31, in page 18, line 5, at end insert—


'1960 c.67.
The Public bodies In the Schedule, para-(Admission to Meetings) graph 1(c).' Act 1960.

No. 32, in page 18, line 17, column 3, at end insert—

'Space'.

No. 34, in page 19, leave out lines 21 to 23.—[Mr. Wyn Roberts.]

Title

Amendments made: No. 35, in line 8, leave out 'repeal section 25(1)(d) of' and insert 'amend Schedule 5 to'.

No. 36, in line 9, at end insert Nto repeal'.—[Mr. Wyn Roberts.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Denis Howell: Although other hon. Members may wish to intervene, it may expedite our proceedings if I speak now before the Minister. That may get us home a little earlier than would otherwise be the case. I must register our disappointment and concern over a number of areas, but I assure the House that I shall do so as expeditiously as possible.
It is no accident that in committee we spent 14 hours on clause 1. We have been unable to say anything about

clause 1 on Report for the very good reason that Mr. Speaker did not select the brilliant amendment drafted by the Opposition, which sought to put on the statute book a substitute for the National Water Council.
That is a great pity. We totally opposed the decision to kill off the National Water Council. It was an ill-conceived decision, but I shall not bore the House by repeating the 14 hours of argument now.
What obviously emerges at the end of this long examination is that important national decisionsstill have to be taken within the water industry. We are in the ludicrous position that the Government propose to abolish the statutory National Water Council and at the same time to establish a national association of water authority chairmen which will have to do all the things which the National Water Council was charged with doing.
There is no escape from the fact that a national water strategy is needed, but the Bill does not say how it is to be achieved. One can only assume that it is to be done within the Department, so giving more and more centralised power to Ministers who will be taking decisions about subjects which we will not be advised upon and will have little opportunity to comment on.
There must be a national water strategy. It would have been much better if that could have been done by the Government accepting our amendment, although I admit that, as it was not selected for debate, it would have been a little difficult. However, Parliament has to be taken as a whole, like many other things, which means, thank goodness, that there is another place where the Government and other people may return to these issues.
The Under-Secretary of State referred to an association of water authority chairmen. In our new clause 2, which we would have preferred, we called it an association of water authorities. It means the same thing—a national water council by another name. Although the Government have not written this into the Bill they have, by providing for an association of water authorities, conceded the case that we have been making. All right. Perhaps they wanted it to have more of a consultative and advisory role than the old statutory National Water Council. I hope the Government, even at this late stage, will decide that provision for that authority should be put into the Bill, outlining some of the functions with which it should deal, such as the provision of advice to the Secretary of State on matters of national planning of water resources and a national strategy for water disposal and waterways. We lament the demise of the National Water Council.
With that comes the most fundamental objection to the Bill, which again we have not been able to deal with at all today, apart from a cursory reference by the Under-Secretary of State—the decision to remove from all positions of influence any elected local government representative. This is the first time it has happened since the inception of the water industry. It is very serious. As I have already conceded, no doubt the Secretary of State will show enough wisdom to ensure that there are on the water authorities people experienced in local government, but that is totally different from killing the concept of direct election and nomination of local authority interests. Who would have thought that it would be a Conservative Government who would strike this blow at the heart of local government democracy? Had the proposal come from a Labour Government or a Government of another complexion, the sounds of protest would have been reaching up to heaven.

Mr. Spearing: Eastern Europe.

Mr. Howell: Absolutely. As I said when these proposals were first brought forward, nothing so despotic in its intention can be found this side of the iron curtain. These proposals are coming from a Conservative Government.
Some of us, especially those of us with experience in local government, must stand up and say that this is a sad day for local government democracy and accountability. As the Government know, all the local authority associations, when pressed, have been forced to say that this is a lamentable day for local government and that the Government have behaved disgracefully.
I repeat that every one of our major water undertakings stemmed from local government. They were all provided by local government. Similarly, the great schemes for drainage and water disposal were provided by local government. They were provided by ratepayers throughout the country. It is a shocking state of affairs when local government is prevented from making any direct nominations, or from holding membership of such bodies.
That point must be considered alongside the other Government proposals that we regard with great suspicion and sadness. There is to be no local government membership, no ombudsman, no press representation at water authority meetings, no national joint industrial council and no national wage negotiations. We still do not know what will happen in that important area. There is no statutory provision for the representatives of sport and recreation. The abolition of the items on that shortlist means that considerable rights and safeguards are being removed from the people. It is our duty to bring that to the attention of the House.
There is to be no sensible system of equalisation or fair charging between one region and another. We should have preferred to debate amendment No. 16 rather than the amendment upon which minority interests have just forced a vote at a very late hour. It would have been much better if the representatives of those interests had been in Committee to vote with us on the subject. However, they chose not to be present and not to vote. Nevertheless, we must return to this issue. The politics of the situation will not allow any Government to leave it as it is.
Therefore, in the absence of the strident voices of any representatives of the Liberal and Welsh nationalist Benches, I shall make it clear that we give a firm commitment—along the lines of amendment No. 16—to achieve fairness of charges by equalisation mark 2, or some other means. That is the inescapable commitment that I must give on behalf of the Labour party. As I have said, there is no provision for wage negotiations. It is incredible that, despite their seriousness, the Government are leaving a decision about whether to have any national joint industrial negotiations to the authorities.
I shall not talk about the wage dispute now, but I am sorry that the Minister did not take the opportunity to face up to the question of how, when the chairmen have decided how they will negotiate with the unions, to prevent any majority decision in favour of national negotiation from being undermined by allowing one or two authorities to go it alone and to opt out of any system. I hope that the Minister will give the matter further thought before the Bill returns from the other place. That is the point that we have tried to make.
Most regional water authorities think that there should be some national joint industrial negotiations. They are right to do so, but there is a minority who think the opposite. If my information is accurate, any such system must apply to the 10 water authorities and the Welsh water authority. It would be catastrophic if that was not so. Therefore, I hope that that is made clear. I should like it to be written into the Bill. I hope that if the chairmen have reached their conclusions before the Bill goes to or returns from another place the Government will take the opportunity to do so. I assure them that the writing in of a provision for national joint industrial negotiations will go a long way to remove many of the misconceptions and some of the bitterness that exist at present.
There is nothing in the Bill about the important question who will finance research in the industry. The water industry has had a good research record. One knows the different views that exist in the industry. Some of the regional water authorities do not see why they should contribute to a national research programme, because they think that they are big enough to do their own. However, it must be extremely wasteful to have 10 separate research programmes without any co-ordination or central direction. That again is a cause of considerable anxiety to us.
For all those reasons, we find the Bill disappointing and inadequate. Obviously we must accept what we have been able to achieve in the Bill. In Committee we were co-operative despite the clear divisions of principle between the two sides. We achieved some things and tried to improve some of the provisions. Obviously the country must have some machinery for providing for the industry's future. Therefore, this is not the time to vote against the Bill on Third Reading, although we opposed it in principle on Second Reading. We can only hope that in another place it is even further improved and that when it returns to the House some of our points will, on reflection, be conceded. In that belief I shall support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Durant: I wish to intervene for only a moment, first to thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for his co-operation and help on the Bill, and, secondly, to ask him whether an amendment will be tabled in another place on the sewerage arrangements for local authorities. The local authorities are anxious about this. We had a debate on it in Committee. A new clause was tabled, but naturally it was not selected because of the rules of the House. However, I should like an assurance from the Under-Secretary that there will be an adequate amendment tabled in another place to deal with this important question of sewerage arrangements for local authorities.

Mr. Spearing: I agree with all that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) said about the Bill, but he was too kind. It is a destructive Bill. It takes away rather than builds up, and it destroys relationships and organisms which after 10 years are beginning to settle down and could have been improved by a different Bill.
It has been said recently that the House is a charade. I do not agree with that. However, as I knew something about water before I came to the House, I can well see why


some people outside sometimes take that view of proceedings here on matters about which they have knowledge.
Conservative Members are debating an arcane subject late at night, and they want to go home, but they are being kept up. I point out to them that the Bill will have the same effect as the Acts that introduced health reorganisation and local government reorganisation. Like those Acts, this one is not fitted to the needs of the nation, the consumers or good government. We have this bad Bill because we have a bad Government, and—I have to say this, although the Minister is here—bad judgement by Ministers when they were looking for a solution to the problem of how to improve what we have.
When the Secretary of State, as a junior Minister, made a statement some months ago about what the government intended, he knows that I very nearly lost my temper with him. I intervened from a sedentary position, with some effect, as he will see if he reads Hansard. The proceedings today show just how bad a Government can be when they are dealing with matters that need improving, but they take the wrong turning.
When I came to the House, London's pure water was the responsibility of the Metropolitan water board, and the drainage was dealt with by the GLC board of works, an ex-LCC department. It was a large organisation by any standards. We did not wish it to be merged with the Thames water authority, and I moved an amendment, although not against the water cycle, which we all wanted to be brought into the water organisation. The amendment was for a number of small regional authorities coordinated nationally to provide a comprehensive system of water co-operation and government.
The Government of the day—some present hon. Members were here at that time—attempted to put water into the straitjacket of something that they understood to be a public utility. The original Bill as conceived by the then Secretary of State aimed to treat water like electricity and gas. Perhaps the Ministers had played "Monopoly" too much when they were young and thought that they were all the same. They are not.
Electricity and gas may be natural phenomena, but they are channelled, stored, supplied and measured by man. Water is not like that. It is around us all the time. It is in the streets, on the roofs, on the roads, in the gardens, on agricultural land, on the mountains, on the moorlands, on the seas and in the estuaries. It is a natural phenomenon that would exist if we were not here. Yet the Government are putting it on a par with the other public utilities. Water impregnates the environment and the soil.
One cannot run an organisation dealing with this essential substance on the basis of a Whitehall bureaucracy. However, that is what the Bill is trying to do. I am not suggesting that the original water authorities were ideal: there was much wrong that should have been improved. They were probably too large and perhaps too remote. That could have been dealt with in other ways. There is certainly a need for a national co-ordinating mechanism.
I criticised the National Water Council when it started because I thought that it would be too weak. It has done a reasonably good job, but the Secretary of State now wants to destroy it. However, to do so, the Government are having to get together an association to fulfil those very

important national functions that even the Government admit have to be carried out. We are taking away those functions by statute and having to create something else in their place. That is not a very sensible thing to do. I do not know the Government's objectives. They have never been explained in terms that make sense to anyone who knows anything about the water industry.
I appreciate the spirit in which the Minister replied to my proposal in the opening debate. He said that the job of the Water Space Amenity Commission had largely been done. Its pioneering work may have been done, but continuation of its executive work remains. The putative association of water authorities will certainly set up a replacement for the Water Space Amenity Commission, although not one with statutory responsibilities and powers. There is nothing in public life between hon. Members and the Secretary of State and every tap, cistern and pipe in every house in the country. It may be true that hon. Members cannot ask direct questions about day-to-day management, just as we cannot ask the Secretary of State for Transport why the 5.25 was late. Years ago, when the British Railways Board was first established, such questions could be asked.
Under the Bill, hon. Members will not be able to ask the Minister about the detailed conduct of any of the boards that he has appointed. That will be part of day-to-day administration. I make no complaint about the practice of the House under which hon. Members cannot ask such questions. If, however, it is argued that these matters are too detailed to be dealt with here, there should be machinery for them to be dealt with elsewhere. All that the Bill contains is the apology for consumer councils contained in clause 7, which is not really concerned with consumer councils at all. They exist within the clause but the obligations are concerned with reporting arrangements. The councils are not even set out in constitutional form. Everything will depend upon the guidelines about which the Minister has spoken.
The Government will be reneging on their responsibilities if they fail to state in statutory form how the consumer councils should work. Otherwise, there is nothing between every tap, cistern and lavatory and this House and the Secretary of State. It is certainly not desirable that the right hon. Gentleman should be burdened with those responsibilities.
The Bill creates further bureaucracy without accountability. It gives enormous powers of patronage to the Secretary of State. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not exercise them in the manner that the Secretary of State for Social Services appears to be exercising such powers in respect of health boards. However, if one Secretary of State can behave in this manner in health matters, another Secretary of State can do the same in respect of water.
There have been complaints by the Minister and Conservative Members that councils have not been too careful about their appointments to regional water authorities. It has been a place where old horses go out to grass or where people can be sent to Coventry. This has not been stated in so many words, but it has been the implication. What will the Secretary of State do? How will even the best Secretary of State be able to choose between the merits of the nominees to be appointed to regional hospital boards? He will be even more reliant on ladies and gentlemen to whom, by custom, we cannot refer in this place even if some of them are present.
The Government, who have views about Whitehall and the Civil Service, are adding to a machine that they criticise, not always properly. It is another feature of the Bill that is destructive and regressive in terms of good public administration. Almost every feature of the Bill is backward and is dismantling what has been started. It should never have been brought to the House. It should not be passed.

Mr. Neil Thorne: My hon. Friend will remember that in Committee I expressed concern about the powers to be vested in the water authorities to assist in winning overseas business, and I said that the Association of Consulting Engineers had expressed grave concern about possible unfair competition by water authorities. My right hon. Friend gave certain assurances, and concluded his remarks by observing:
Why the involvement of the public sector is so important is that we can have this co-operative approach of enabling overseas customers to visit water authorities and water companies and actually see British plant operating and to see something of the success of their work".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 9 December 1982; c. 205.]
That was important, but it appears that the rules to be laid down for this type of operation will be by the issue of guidelines. Can my hon. Friend tell me whether he has made any further progress in preparing those guidelines, and whether they will have the force of law? If not, presumably they could be breached at any time, and therefore would not provide safeguards likely to last as long as the Bill, when it becomes law. That would be less than satisfactory.
The consultation document on the matter published in June 1981 said:
It is not intended that the export activities of the bodies should extend to competition in the fields of design, engineering construction or supply of plant which is the province of the private sector. The exercise of export powers by the bodies would be subject to the written consent of the Secretary of State who would be able to impose conditions".
It is clear from this that it is the Government's intention not to allow unfair competition at the expense of the water ratepayers. If my hon. Friend acknowledges the very real concern that was expressed in Committee and accepted by my right hon. Friend, now the Secretary of State for the Environment, will he please be more specific about what he has in mind to allay that fear?

Mr. Ogden: At 12.56, I am well aware of the lateness of the hour and the desire of most hon. Members to be in another place—and not necessarily the place at the red end of the Corridor. I am also aware that on 19 January, the day after the publication of the Franks report, there is little general interest in our affairs from the press, which earlier was notable for its absence. I believe that it was at a party elsewhere in the building—whether to celebrate the Prime Minister's acquittal, I do not know. However, the results of the Government's reorganisation of the water industry may have a much greater effect on the lives of my constituents than the Franks report that is getting all the attention today.
I want to put one or two questions to the Minister, and one or two to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). The right hon. Gentleman did a rollcall a short time ago. It amounted to about half a dozen Members on the Opposition Benches—now three

enthusiasts, all men—and half a dozen enthusiasts on the Conservative Benches, and possibly 154 pressed men and women to maintain the Government's majority. The right hon. Gentleman said that he intended to support Third Reading. Perhaps he would have been more accurate if he had said that he would not oppose Third Reading.

Mr. Denis Howell: That is exactly the position.

Mr. Ogden: As a former colleague, I just wanted to clarify that. The fact that there is no formal Note against Third Reading does not mean that we approve the Bill, as cosmetically amended. We accept the reality of the situation that there are 160 votes on the Government side.
Some changes have been made. As I said, they are essentially cosmetic. The balance that we had on Second Reading between a service authority and a service industry, between an efficient authority and an accountable authority, has gone too far. We have virtually excluded the formal interest of the press, local authorities and the ombudsman, and so the accountability of the water authorities comes direct to this place. I shall be interested to read the Minister's replies about what questions we can ask and what we cannot.
If we are formally to exclude local authorities, the press and the ombudsman, and if this is to be the only place in which questions can be asked, a responsibility is placed on hon. Members to organise their affairs in their parliamentary activities within the districts and the regions. The relationship of hon. Members to the water authorities in their areas must be much closer and perhaps much more formal than hitherto. In the past we could leave it to local authority members, the ombudsman and the press to be the public's watchdogs, but it will be necessary now to achieve a more formal relationship. I shall be asking for that in the North-West and no doubt the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) will be asking for the same thing.
I ask the Minister to help encourage a more formal link and association. This will not mean committees, but if we are the only ones who will be able to call the authorities to account through Parliament we shall want to establish closer links for the sake of the authorities and the consumers. I do not support Third Reading, but I recognise that it is inevitable that it will receive it tonight.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I want briefly to share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) about the change in arrangements for sewerage agencies that is contained in the Bill. I urge my hon. Friend to examine carefully the change that is proposed. In my experience the arrangements whereby district councils have the right to exercise the agency work effectively, informally, efficiently and cheaply. It could be costly to change the present arrangement and I hope that my hon. Friend will re-examine the proposed change.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We are about to complete the second reorganisation of the water industry in 10 years. Rather than having learnt by the mistakes of the previous reorganisation, the Government are extending and enlarging the mistakes. The Conservative Government between 1970 and 1974 reorganised local government, the Health Service and the


water industry. They were all pretty disastrous reorganisations, but of the three I believe that they made the worst job of the water industry. They have done little to remedy their earlier mistakes. Indeed, they have made them far worse.
The Government have attacked the principle of local democracy. It is odd that a Government who are so dependent on the principle should be so happy to erode it at local level. Unless we are prepared to defend local democracy we can hardly expect others to defend and subscribe to the principle of national democracy. As long as the water authorities had an element of local democracy in them, it was considered necessary for an ombudsman to scrutinise individual complaints, to allow the press into their meetings and to have a substantial number involved in the letting of contracts so that it would be extremely difficult for an individual to be bribed or persuaded to allow a contract to go in a certain direction. The Government have decided drastically to reduce the element of democracy and the number of those involved in decision making, and at the same time they have made it far easier to corrupt the whole process. It seems that the Government feel that they no longer need to check.
It is odd that when the Government set up a quango and appointments are made purely on the Government's whim, it is thought unnecessary to involve an ombudsman. This means that no one can make individual complaints aout maladministration. It is considered unnecessary for the press to be at meetings and no major safeguards are built into the new system to ensure that there are no allegations of corruption, or that no corruption actually occurs in the granting of contracts.

Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree with the cynic, who may be the realist, who said that the only thing that makes sense in the proposals is the whiff of contracts?

Mr. Bennett: I accept those comments. It will be difficult for the new water authorities to establish confidence in the general public on the basis on which they are appointed when there are none of the checks and balances that existed in the past.
I very much regret that the Bill in no way deals with the major complaint of most constituents about the water authorities. The problem is that one has no control over the size of the bill. If one consumes less, the bill is not less. The Government keep saying that the water authorities should be treated like public utilities. The one thing that distinguishes the gas and electricity boards from water authorities is that the amount of gas and electricity that my constituents and others consume determines their bills. However, for water, there is no way in which they can control their bills. The Government should have introduced into the measure some rebate for those on low incomes, pensioners and others so that the ability of individuals to pay their water rates is taken into account.
The Government should take account of people's consumption of water. Water consumption, by the elderly is small compared to that of neighbours who live in identical houses, who at the moment pay identical water rates, but consume different amounts.
I deeply regret the fact that the Government have not looked at one of the reasons why the sewerage element of the water charges has gone up dramatically in many areas. In the north-west of England one of the major problems

is sewer dereliction. A number of sewers have collapsed. Most sewers in the big cities in the north-west were built last century, and were built well. They would have every prospect of lasting a long time if they had to deal merely with the sewage that travels through them. What has been destroying the sewers is not the sewage but the number of heavy road vehicles, particularly the heavy lorries, which now move about the city streets. It is a question whether those who are damaging the sewers should make more contribution to their renewal rather than letting the charge fall on those who live in the area, who in many instances do not want the heavy lorries there anyway.
I also deeply regret the fact that the measure does not deal with water conservation. The demand in the water industry for new reservoirs has slackened because of the general malaise in the economy created by the Government. If the economy were to pick up, there might be demands for more reservoirs in areas of outstanding natural beauty.
We should consider water conservation. It is crazy that considerable volumes of water fall on the roofs of most houses, and are used in no way, but become a further problem to be dealt with by the sewers. We should make some use of that water.
With regard to domestic appliances, there are continual efforts to sell dishwashers and washing machines, which use vast quantities of water and are not designed to conserve water. In building regulations the systems for toilets are supposed to be designed now so that two different quantities of water are used, but there is no encouragement to individual householders to instal in replacement of a damaged system one that conserves water.
There are no measures to encourage the sensible use of water in this country. The Government have missed an opportunity to bring some sense into water conservation and to ensure that we do not keep demanding more and more reservoirs all over the country to meet future needs for water when simple conservation measures and modifications to domestic appliances would enable us to make far better use of existing resources.
We had a long debate earlier on the use of leisure facilities. Again, the Government have missed an opportunity to make far better use of those facilities and to do a little more to try to bring together the conflicting interests of the many groups that want to use water for leisure purposes.
If the Government are so determined to break the link between the water authorities and local government, I hope that they will encourage local government to ensure that enforcement of proper standards is imposed on the water authorities and that the public health departments of many local authorities will be encouraged to take action against water authorities when failures of sewage works and equipment lead to major pollution problems.
Finally, I am disappointed that Opposition Front Bench spokesmen did not give a clear undertaking that as soon as they have the opportunity they will reorganise the water industry and bring local democracy back to the collection and distribution of water and the collection of sewage, even if that means a national measure in relation to water collection. I deeply regret that after the 1973 reorganisation had made such a mess of the water industry the Labour Government merely embarked on consultations rather than actually putting the mess right. I hope that we should have a clear commitment today that the next


Labour Government will not simply wait and consult but will take action to put the industry back under local democratic control at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Ioan Evans: Having served on the Committee and spent a great deal of time trying to persuade the Government to think again on many of the matters that we have discussed on Report and now on Third Reading, I hope that there will be some deep thinking by the Government when the Bill is considered in another place and some serious amendments made before it returns here.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) described what a future Labour Government should do. I am sure that he is right and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), who is present for this debate, will agree that a Labour Government should not allow this legislation to remain on the statute book. I appreciate the feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North about what the last Labour Government should have done about the 1973 Act, but he will realise the difficulties that we had in that parliament. I think that the belief was that one should not start reorganising again immediately after a major reorganisation but should first consider the effects.
It is important that Governments should think things through before introducing legislation. The weakness of the Government is that they are still thinking about the Bill on Report and Third Reading. Indeed, Ministers have told us today that they are still not in a position to say how they will proceed but are having consultations. That is scandalous.
If we were to nominate the 10 worst Bills in this Parliament, this Bill would certainly feature in the list. It is a damnable Bill. It does nothing to solve the problems facing the water industry. The Government recognise that the 1973 reorganisation was wrong, but this Bill is even worse. At least the 1973 Act allowed for the representation of local authorities. The Bill cuts out local authority representatives completely.
We have heard a great song from Conservative Members about not wanting a lot of quangos. They say that they want bodies to be accountable, yet we are creating 10 quangos, the members of which are nominated by and are the servants of the Secretary of State. Moreover, we have a Conservative Secretary of State for Wales in a country which is predominantly Labour. He will nominate those who will serve on a body that will not represent the beliefs of people in Wales. The same will happen in many regions in England, such as the north and the midlands.
I congratulate the Secretary of State on being the successor of the present Secretary of State for Defence. If we are to have regional bodies, I should have thought that they would be more accountable if they consisted of people who had been elected to local authorities rather than those who are nominated by the Secretary of State. Local authority representatives served water authorities well, but the fact that they are democratically elected representatives is of no account to this Government.
The Government say that they will consider making appointments. We are to have the farcical circumstance that some members of the bodies will have experience of fishing, others will have experience of agriculture, still others will have experience of local government. There

might be a councillor who does a little fishing and a little farming, but there is no guarantee that there will be accountability.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will my hon. Friend put on record his anxiety, which is shared by the rest of the Labour Party, that the executive appointees will not be subjected to any scrutiny through election? What is more, the press is to be excluded from meetings of water authorities. They are to be shut out of them deliberately and will be limited to press conferences afterwards. That is a real step backwards for democracy.

Mr. Evans: All hon. Members who have served on the Committee have expressed deep anxiety about the way in which local authorities are being treated. Local authorities throughout Britain, their members and their associations oppose what the Government are doing about local government representation. There is no justification for doing away with such representation.
The Government have paid tribute to the work of the National Water Council. In Committee, we discovered the emergence of an association of the water regions. There is to be a National Water Council under another name. We do not know what will happen. Presumably consultations are still taking place. I hope that there are consultations before the Bill returns from the other place, but they just go on and on. We do not know what body will replace the National Water Council.
The Government's action is deplorable. If we have a regional system of organising water, not a national one, there must be a national water policy. If there is a national water policy—every nation must have one—there must be an organisation such as the National Water Council.
The Water Space Amenity Commission has also been abolished. The Government have made only a few concessions in that regard. In Committee, we found that the National Water Council dealt with the activities of overseas water authorities.
Other countries are developing their water industries. The National Water Council has put them in touch with regional water authorities. That has meant trade for our industries. We have put them in touch with companies that can help them to develop their water industries. When I challenged the Minister on that point, he said that a company would be formed. One of his colleagues said that it would be named the Aberdare company. We can take jokes, but it is a serious business. What about the company? We have not been told the details yet. What will happen to the important work of the National Water Council in dealing with other countries?
The House as a whole has realised the importance of developing the role of the local authority commissioner. Local water industry boards have been responsible to the local authority commissioner. People who felt that there had been maladministration complained to the ombudsman. The Government are abolishing that role. It is not a step forward. We had hoped that there would be a role for the ombudsman in other Government activities.
Hon. Members have referred to the Water Charges Equalisation Act 1977. The Labour Government's activities were not sufficient to deal with injustices whereby people in different regions paid a different price for an adequate water supply. There are great injustices. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) dealt with the matter. We have heard


assurances that a Labour Government will tackle the problem. Someone said that it was a burning question in Wales. It is an importat and serious question which the Government have ignored.
The Franks report and the way in which the press was treated have been referred to today. The Prime Minister, in her maiden speech, said that the press should be allowed access to certain discussions. Yet the Government will exclude the press from discussions among the water authorities. Until the Bill is enacted, the press are allowed to attend meetings. We have heard quotations from numerous editors who are deeply concerned about the effect of the Government's proposals. There are to be arranged meetings—no doubt they will refer to recommendations being made by the water boards—

Mr. Spearing: Paragraphs in the report.

Mr. Evans: They will refer to certain of their activities. Until now members of the press hae been allowed to listen to the deliberations.
There is a need for national negotiations on wages in the industry. The Government's proposals are a major step backwards and a recipe for chaos. Different arrangements will be made at different trade union negotiations in different regions. Will there be a great disparity in the wages paid to workers doing a similar job?
The Bill is deplorable. I hope that major amendments will be made in another place. If not, I hope that my right hon.and hon. Friends, who said that a Labour Government will not sustain the measure, will make it a priority to introduce legislation to organise the water industry on a far better basis.

Mr. Giles Shaw: Of course, there are those who see no prospect of improvement for the water industry in this Bill and who wish to oppose the principles on which it is based. Therefore, it is unlikely that my remarks will help to alleviate their worries. However, I make it clear that we must form the association of water authorities. We have always said that there are some essential functions on which there should be consultation between regional water authorities and agreements on policies to be pursued. They should be the basis of agreement between the authorities and not emanate from a statutorily based, separate organisation. Those consultations, and the policies that emerge from them, should be provided at a lower cost to the consumer and should be more efficient. The association of water authorities has issued its memorandum of association. Matters are proceeding, but the consultations are incomplete.
The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans), who has now resumed his silent seat on the Opposition Front Bench, rather than his loquacious seat, should bear in mind that the continuing negotiations show that progress is being made. He would be the first to be upset if we did not have full and adequate consultations about such an important industry. We are even consulting the House of Commons and have made significant changes to the Bill as a result of that consultation. Let us draw pleasure and, I hope, comfort from that.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) mentioned research. There is a commitment that research should continue. The water authority

chairmen recognise that fact and they also recognise the collective importance of backing the water research centre, which is a crucial part of the research in the industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) asked about sewerage arrangements, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker). I know about the worries of local authority associations on such matters. Hon. Members who served on the Committee will know that we distributed the consultation paper on amendments, and it is likely that amendments will be made in another place which will have resulted from the consultations that are still being assessed. However, I assure my hon. Friends that the Government emphasise the fact that there should be no fundamental change in the present position. The Government do not intend to go beyond the recommendation of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which was that no fundamental changes should be made. The agency arrangements should continue to play a major role in the way in which sewerage and drainage are undertaken by local authorities. The Monopolies and Mergers Commission confirmed that, in many cases, those arrangements work well. When we have reached firm conclusions, we shall introduce amendments in another place and there will be a subsequent opportunity for the House to discuss those issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) asked about export powers. In addition to the assurances that I gave to him in Committee, may I say that we shall ensure that water authorities which set up arrangements for overseas ventures will be strictly controlled. The bodies will be required to report to the Secretary of State any likely loss under a contract and how they propose to remedy it, to keep separate accounts for overseas business—which in many cases will be business undertaken by a separately established company—to take one year with another to meet their outgoings, to meet on their overseas activities any financial targets set for that business as a whole and, finally, to take out insurance and require bonds where necessary. In that way, proper competitive and fair conditions will be applied to the activities that water authorities undertake in overseas markets. However, they should be encouraged to take those opportunities where there are export orders to be won.
I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) that there should be close contact with Members of Parliament in the new phase of water authorities. Water authority chairmen would welcome that, and I am sure that that is the case in the north-west as it is in other areas. Assistance with water bills is available under DHSS arrangements but is not available in the same context as a rebate for local rates, as water bills are charges for services that have been delivered.
I am well aware that there are some major differences of view. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) launched his attack on what is proposed in a most extraordinary way. I take note of his views on this matter. Many hon. Members have played a part in the proceedings. I thank my hon. Friends who served on the Committee and my hon. Friends who are present tonight. I value their support and help in processing the Bill. It is a further step forward in trying to make improvements in the way in which water authorities discharge their functions. Based on principles with which my hon. Friends


will be content, I trust that commercial operations run in the water authorities will gain the confidence of the House and of consumers.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I was not in the Chamber earlier as I have been in the Committee dealing with the Transport Bill. If Conservative Members are worried about the Bill going on into the night, they should not be trying to trample through Parliament in such rapid succession legislation which takes many hon. Members into Committees because the Government want to get the transport legislation, for example, on the statute book in order to affect the position of local authorities in the next financial year. If the Government had any sense, and introduced legislation in a more ordered way, it would not be necessary to have to spend long hours in late sittings, as Parliament would not be subjected to the pressure it is under purely as a result of the action of the Government.
It is a matter of concern that bodies that are already regarded with some dissatisfaction by the consumer because of their remoteness, should be made even more remote by the Government by replacing the indirect nominations from the elected bodies—the local authorities—with executive appointees, who moreover, will not be subject to proper and adequate scrutiny through the local press. The local papers keep an eye on what local water authorities are doing and report to the consumers in their regions. Many local papers have expressed strong criticism of the Government for taking away the obligation of local authorities, including the water authorities, to be subject to such scrutiny. Indeed, local authority representation on the water authority is indirect. There are no direct elections.
The Opposition should seek, when we get into government after the next election, to replace these appointees with directly elected representatives on the water authorities so that there is more accountability, and give the press access to their meetings.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) said, there will be a strong feeling that behind closed doors funds may be misapplied, tenders wrongly allocated and rules bent instead of the open decision-making to which our democratic bodies are subject. This Bill is a retrograde step. It is a move closer to central government control. That is characteristic of this legislation and of other Bills such as the Transport Bill. The Government's claim is that the man in Whitehall knows best.
We see Conservative Members of Parliament on television talking about abolishing the metropolitan county councils and suggesting that those elected bodies should be replaced by boards of people nominated from metropolitan district councils, the very system which the Conservative Government are abolishing for the water boards. If it has merit for metropolitan county councils, it is strange that in another area the self-same Government formed by the Conservative Party are abolishing the system which they propose as a suitable replacement for metropolitan county councils.
The best method of accountability in a democracy is a democratically elected body. We are a democratically elected body. If anybody interferes with Parliament or makes suggestions about interfering with Parliament, there are cries about breach of privilege. When people stand up in the Gallery and make suggestions about what we should be debating there are great cries about non-interference with an elected body. But when it comes down to water authorities, even the modest vestiges of democracy are swept aside by the very people who talk in such glowing terms about parliamentary democracy.
This is simply a further aspecct of the corporate state which is developing under the present regime and is a half-way stage towards privatisation. Some of the water concerns are potentially highly profitable. By virtue of their organisation they are bound to be monopolies. Under this sort of system, with a narrow group of executives running these businesses, they would be much more easily sold off to private enterprise. Indeed, some water supplies are already operated by the private sector.
The trade unions do not want that sort of reorganisation. They view it with apprehension and concern. If the Minister is not aware of it, there is the making of a major dispute in the water industry. It is very much to be hoped that the Minister will keep the House closely informed.
This Bill clearly cannot assist in maintaining good industrial relations within the industry. Therefore, on those counts hopefully it will not come into operation by virtue of the curtailment of the life of the Government. When the Labour Party gets into power we will establish a democratically elected system which is genuinely accountable. We will not only apply our policy of open government in central Government but will restore open government at this level by giving the press access to the control of these important bodies.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — Industrial Regeneration (West London)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Mr. Harry Greenway: There is widespread anxiety among the business community in west London over what they consider to be severe hindrances to economic growth, hindrances which could well be repeating themselves in some form in other constituencies. To bring this anxiety into perspective it should be noted that the industrial and commercial community of west London stretches from the heart of inner London Hammersmith and Fulham through Ealing, Hounslow and Hillingdon to Heathrow airport. Hon. Members who represent these areas are very concerned about industry in the area. I note the presence in the Chamber of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), which shows his concern about this important matter.
West London has a total area of 60,000 acres and a working population of nearly 450,000. It contains thousands of vigorous small firms in the manufacturing and service sectors, together with a large number of major manufacturing companies, including household names such as Beecham, Gillette, Glaxo, Honeywell and IBM, many of which make a valuable contribution to our export figures.
A report was recently prepared for the West London Group of the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which clearly shows the need for positive action by local authorities, the GLC and central Government in order to bolster industry and commerce in the area and reverse the trend of unemployment. West London has not been insulated from the effects of the recession we have been going through in recent years. Unemployment has risen to levels well above anything experienced in the post-war period, despite the area retaining its basic resilience and the fact that many firms are expanding and consolidating their activities in west London. We should be grateful for the fact that these firms are showing their confidence, not only in the area but in our future economic position and that some local boroughs are supporting the initiatives of business men by designing land for industrial estates.
However, business men feel, and I agree with their view, that, despite all the hopeful pointers for the future, certain factors are bearing down on them and making it more difficult for them to compete. Some of these factors are the fault of the boroughs, some the fault of the GLC and others the fault of central Government. In particular, three issues stand out as of prime concern—regional planning, the burden of rates and transport policies.
Let me deal with each in turn, but before doing so I should like to quote what was said recently by Mr. Keith Barratt, the chairman of the west London group of the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry. He is convinced that should the appropriate measures that I am about to outline be acted upon, the result will be more jobs for west London and that the area could become a growth pole for the wider region, with significant spillover effects for the whole of London and, indeed, our industrial and commercial recovery as a whole.
For much of the post-war period, regional planning policy has been based on offering business men as a whole a series of incentives aimed at encouraging them to go to

some other part of the country. In reality, this has effectively meant a policy that has restricted the freedom of some business men to expand or locate in their preferred sites.
In times of overall prosperity and industrial growth, this policy may be defensible, although some would even question that—myself among them. However, in a recessionary economic climate, the costs of such a policy to the community are indefensible. Surely no one would disagree that every possible investment should be sought and encouraged wherever it may be proposed. I emphasise the importance of this. There is no doubt that London as a whole is affected by attempts to direct industrial and commercial development to regions such as Wales, Scotland and the north-east—away from London. Tragically, the result is that this policy merely causes the supression of expansion. It harms London, but produces no benefit elsewhere either.
Put another way, it is now widely agreed that the nation's education standards are not improved by condemning or damaging the growth of good schools. The same applies to industry. Industrial prosperity is not boosted by unfair discrimination against London. Apart from the inner urban sector, west London as a whole does not receive any of the major incentives for industrial development and little official thought is given to encouraging firms to stay in this area. In some cases, when firms move away from London, they take skilled staff with them. Business men in west London do not support or seek indiscriminate handouts of public money, but nor do they seek penalties on operating their businesses in a way that they know will bring the greatest benefits for jobs.
The point has been made that the Japanese operate discrimination against British business men. For many of those same business men in west London, discrimination operates from within, yet it is national economic policy to improve the competitiveness of British industry. This policy is not helped by the discrimination in favour of development areas and suchlike, which makes it harder for industry and commerce in west London to compete on equal terms.
Furthermore, the original concepts upon which this type of regional policy was based are outdated. In some parts of west London, the unemployment rate has recently reached that of Wales. In addition to that discriminatory regional policy, business men in west London are faced by the GLC's operation of its own form of intra-regional policy, whereby certain areas are designated as "preferred" for various forms of activity. This colours the GLC's whole approach to planning applications referred to it by the boroughs, for it has to approve any departures from the Greater London development plan.
Rigid distinctions are made on planning applications as between industry, office and warehouse developments, particularly for change of use applications. In some instances, the zoning criteria have not been changed since the initial development plan of 1965, many years ago. Surely such category distinctions, some of which date back almost 20 years, have no place in the 1980s. What is needed is maximum flexibility, speed and imagination by planning authorities, especially the GLC, in processing applications. The costs of delay to firms and thus to the whole community can be, and frequently are, very severe.
In the longer term, the rating system requires national reform, but, in the meantime, more needs to be done to make rating authorities much more aware of the burdens


that rates impose on business, and the adverse effects that they can have on developments, and therefore on employment. Rates must be paid by a given date, irrespective of the financial position of the company. The report to the west London group of the LCCI shows that in many cases high rates cause firms to cut their employment levels, and that in some cases firms are lured to relocate in other parts of the country where rates are lower. This is something that the GLC and other boroughs in west London should consider much more carefully, particularly those—notably the GLC—that are quick to criticise the unemployment levels in their areas.
In the past four years, the average increase in rates in west London has been between 16 and 21 per cent. a year. It has represented the fastest rising element of business costs—higher than the increase in energy prices and in retail prices generally. Naturally the pace of increase has varied from year to year and from borough to borough. Some have made great efforts to try to hold down rate increases in the past year. Notable among those boroughs is the London borough of Ealing, which is Conservative controlled.
However, it must be said that recently the GLC has been responsible for a huge zproportion of the overall rates increase. In some instances the share of the GLC rate in total borough rates levied has increased from about 10 per cent. four years ago to some 25 per cent. now. No one should forget that money that is taken from industry and commerce in that way comes out of resources normally available for financing expansion and the creation of further employment opportunities.
In short, excessive rates cost jobs and can destroy the seedcorn of future business and community prosperity. Although the GLC and some boroughs must take a share of responsibility for what has been happening, it is only fair to point out that disproportionately high rates are not caused solely by the actions of local authorities. It is unfortunate, for example, that rate support grant has been diverted away from London in recent times.
The third area of concern is the need for a fast and efficient transportation network, the lifeblood of business. In many ways west London is ideally situated. It is within easy reach of both central London and Heathrow airport. However, if full advantage is to be taken of that, more attention must be given to improving and developing the road system in particular. The current congestion on roads in many parts of west London is unacceptable, not merely because of the inconvenience. Delays impose real costs on businesses and hamper efficiency at a time when businesses are making great efforts to improve their competitiveness. Unfortunately, the roads issue is complicated by the division of responsibility. The Department of Transport is responsible for trunk roads, the GLC for metropolitan roads, and the boroughs for the remaining primarily residential roads. That generates many problems and paradoxes of funding and determining priorities.
The GLC is completely failing to give priority to many roads for which there is a desperate need. Improvements are required on many roads, including the Uxbridge road. Business depends on efficient routes for goods and materials to and from industrial estates, and those feeder road links must be given high priority. In general, it must be said that the area has a good communication layout from east to west, but that north-south links need considerable improvement. The M25 will certainly

provide some help, but a coherent improvement programme is needed within the M25 ring with access to the motorway. There is also need for a fundamental reform of overlapping functions. Wherever possible, the boroughs should have the power of decision and implementation with the responsibility for overall co-ordination—assuming, as I hope it will, that the GLC will be abolished—going to the London Boroughs Association.
Public transport is another aspect of transport policy that requires greater co-ordination. There is a particular scope in west London for more harmonisation between London Transport and British Rail suburban services. Finally, Heathrow airport represents a facility of great benefit to west London, but it could be more efficiently used
Those are some of the areas in which action is needed to improve the commercial and industrial base of west London. There is no doubt that it is an area of tremendous potential for industrial and commercial growth. Its location, diverse industrial structure, abundant and well-trained labour force make it well placed to take advantage of a future pick-up in the economy.
Many local boroughs have a positive attitude to the developments of local industry and commerce. They are providing industrial estates and are keen to work with the private sector in imaginative schemes for site development as well as providing advice on a wide range of business needs. The Conservative-controlled London borough of Ealing has an excellent record of keeping down rates, which is in strong contrast to Labour boroughs such as Brent. However, I speak of the broad area of west London in the debate. Too often the objectives of local boroughs, the GLC and the Government differ.
To sum up, there are three main areas of concern for business men. First, the whole system of planning applications suffers from inappropriate interventions from bodies such as the GLC which inhibit many profitable developments. Secondly, rates—especially those of the GLC—are stemming expansion and employment opportunities. Thirdly, there is an urgent need for the reordering of road priorities in west London and for more powers and money to be devolved to the boroughs.
The labour force in west London has an enormous range of skills and an excellent reputation for being reasonable and relatively free from industrial strife. Any employer setting up a business or wishing to expand an existing one in west London should have no difficulty in obtaining the type of employee he needs, whether that employee be an unskilled labourer or a highly qualified professional. Throughout west London there are outstandingly good public transport facilities by underground and British Rail. Despite the recession, shopping facilities are being steadily improved, an example of which is the major new shopping centre in Ealing.
Finally, the Conservative-controlled boroughs, of which Ealing is an example, while still continuing to produce a good public service, have kept down rates to the lowest possible levels. They should be rewarded with a Government policy that assists and encourages their prudence.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. John MacGregor): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) on obtaining this opportunity to bring before the House the question of


the needs and opportunities for industrial regeneration in west London. In doing so, he has acted in character. He is assiduous in questions and in correspondence about this problem and is always, as he was tonight, constructive.
As my hon. Friend has emphasised, this part of London has been the focus of growth over many decades and has played a vital part in the growth of the region and the nation. I understand well my hon. Friend's points about west London not being immune from the effects of the recession.. I note the closures, which will doubtless be regretted and cause great anxieties for the families affected.
As my hon. Friend will know well from his contacts with the companies in the area, the recession is worldwide, hitting exporters, because even if they increase their share of export markets, they often find that they are having to fight hard because the markets are declining. No area anywhere, here or abroad, can be immune from the recession.
West London is relatively fortunate in that it has a strong and growing service sector that is still comparatively buoyant and in the longer term may compensate for the declining manufacturing employment in the area. As my hon. Friend says, Heathrow airport dominates this part of London and the construction of terminal 4 should provide a boost of about 6,000 jobs in the area by 1985, even without terminal 5.
West London is also relatively fortunate in that it has, as my hon. Friend has said, the strengths and skills to bring about economic regeneration as industrial patterns change. Not least of its advantages is its strong base of small firms to which my hon. Friend referred. He will know of the strong emphasis that the Government are putting on giving opportunities to, and removing obstacles from the path of, small firms.
When one looks at west London, it is clear that these opportunities are being taken and that there is, as my hon. Friend has said, plenty of confidence in the area's future—the regeneration is already under way. In Ealing alone, between 200,000 and 300,000 sq ft of new factory space has been completed each year in recent years. Developers are confident of the regeneration of west London. Judging by the rate at which the industrial space is being occupied, this confidence is well founded. For example, vacant space on the Park Royal industrial estate has fallen from 26 per cent. in 1979 to 14 per cent. in 1982, despite the recession. Some of the major employers have also expressed their confidence in the area.
It is against this background that I turn to my hon. Friend's particular points, the first of which is regional policy. I wish to make a number of points about this, all of which I hope will help my hon. Friend.
Since this Government came into office, the restrictions on the freedom of business men to expand or locate in their preferred locations has been removed. I announced to the House on 4 December 1981 the suspension of the IDC control. There is therfore no question of this Government directing industrial and commercial development to Wales, Scotland or elsewhere—that situation no longer exists. The stick has been removed and the possible embargo on major developments in the non-assisted areas has gone. Regional policy is now dependent soley on the financial incentives to attract new employment into the areas.
The areas for assistance themselves have been reduced. When we came into office, 44 per cent. of the working population was in assisted areas of one form or another. That was a major element of what my hon. Friend would describe as unfair competition for the non-assisted areas. Moreover, it meant that the aid was being spread too thinly and was clearly proving to be ineffective. We have therefore reduced the assisted area coverage to about 27 per cent. of the country. That is right for regional policy, and for the assisted areas. It also means that the unfair competition aspect for the non-assisted areas has been greatly reduced.
Furthermore, many of the schemes in my Department are nationwide. I refer to section 8 of the Industry Act, the small firms measures, support for innovation and so on. In Ealing, since 1979, 16 offers of assistance under the various measures amounting to £868,000 have been given. I sometimes think that the concentration on discussing regional assistance means that companies both in the assisted areas and in the non-assisted areas neglect these other measures. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be drawing them to the attention of companies in his area.
My hon. Friend said that west London does not receive any major incentives for industrial development. That is not so. A large part of the incentives for industrial development and industrial investment in this country, including premises, is given through the tax system and capital allowances which are available all over the country. These incentives and many locational and other advantages are possessed by Ealing and west London. There is much evidence, which I have in front of me, of substantial industrial redevelopment and much evidence of people getting on with the job of providing new jobs to replace the old.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that there must remain a case for regional policy and special assistance to those parts of the country without west London's advantages, with much deeper structural change problems and with persistently higher rates of unemployment. The highest resident-based unemployment rate in west London is 14·5 per cent. in Southall. In my hon. Friend's constituency, it is 7·7 per cent., a tribute to the work of so many there, including himself.
The unemployment rate for the whole of Wales in December was 16·9 per cent. Of the 40 travel-to-work areas in Wales to which he referred, only 14 had unemployment rates below this national figure. It is not realistic to compare the unemployment rate for a small job centre area such as Southall, located within a large travel-to-work area, with the rate for a whole travel-to-work area in Wales. With this perspective, I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that west London is not suffering the fundamental structural weaknesses to be found in the assisted areas.
I wish to deal now with planning difficulties and to mention a number of points raised by my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend referred to the difficulties associated with the zoning criteria in development plans. He will appreciate that much of what he had to say was directed to the Greater London Council. I hope that his remarks will be noted by that authority. The Government have been moving in the direction that my hon. Friend has urged. The Government, in the 1981 amendment to the Town and Country Planning General Development Order, ensured that planning permission could be given automatically to changes of use from general industrial and warehousing uses to light


industrial use where an undertaking occupies no more than 235 square metres. In circular 22/80 to local authorities, the Government pointed out the damaging effects of rigid zoning policies and encouraged the authorities to take the more flexible approach that my hon. Friend recommends.
My hon. Friend asked for the application of maximum speed and imagination by planning authorities in processing applications. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence did much in his previous capacity to speed up planning procedures and gave particular priority to industrial applications. As a result, in general, 70 per cent. of applications are now processed within eight weeks compared with 60 per cent. when we took office.
I am in total agreement with the points made by my hon. Friend in relation to the rates burden. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry said in Birmingham the other day, these are a heavy and sometimes crippling burden on many companies and we are particularly concerned to ensure that the interests of industrial and commercial ratepayers are safeguarded. We emphasise constantly the threat to local jobs of high spending by local authorities. These are difficult issues that are not directly under Government control. My hon. Friend is aware of the various measures that the Government have taken to bring about a more realistic approach and a more realistic level of expenditure by local authorities. In particular, by proposing a severe holdback scheme in 1983ߝ84 for local authorities which substantially exceed their expenditure targets, the Government aim to prevent this inexorable rate rise.
My hon. Friend referred to the high level of rate increases in west London over the past four years. I am pleased to see that for 1982ߝ83 the percentage increase ranged between 0 per cent. in Hounslow and 17 per cent. in Hillingdon. My hon. Friend referred to the considerable efforts that Ealing and Hillingdon borough councils, both under Conservative control, have made.
For the 1983ߝ84 financial year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has allowed no local authority an expenditure target more than 4 per cent. above its current year's budget. Ealing has done as well as any authority, and has a target of £112·8 million for 1983ߝ84. If it meets that target—and I understand that it is its intention to do everything it can to avoid grant holdback—Ealing will receive £55·1 million block grant from the Government. This is an increase of more than £1·5 million on the grant it is likely to get in the current year.
Last year, with its 42 per cent. increase in precept since Labour took control and for the immediate future, the rub lies with the GLC. I hope very much that Ealing ratepayers will face a very low rate increase next year. How much will depend upon the actions of the GLC. I hope that my hon. Friend's remarks in that context will have been noted.
Finally, I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of fast and efficient transport for business and industry. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is responsible for the trunk road network in London. In west London, these are the radial routes A30

and M3, A4, M4 and A40 Western Avenue. My hon. Friend knows those roads well. He knows that I do not have ministerial responsibility for the area, but perhaps I may comment on what he said. The orbital trunk roads in west London are the North Circular road A406 and the outer London orbital M25 which presently reaches northward to the west of Heathrow. These radial trunk roads will be the main feeders to M25, and I understand that all will be connected to the M25 in about three years from now.
On this network of trunk road radials and orbitals my right hon. Friend's construction programme includes completion of the M25, two-level interchanges on the A40 in the London borough of Hillingdon, and a substantial improvement of the North Circular road from Chiswick northward to the Harrow road junction in the London borough of Brent. No further major schemes are proposed on the other trunk roads in the area because they are regarded as being already to an acceptable standard.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, there is a complication arising from the division of responsibilities for the roads in London, and this matter was foremost in the considerations of the Select Committee which reported to this House last summer. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is considering the recommendations of that Committee.
Apart from the North Circular road and the M25, the main north-south links in west London are the responsibility of the Greater London Council. It is up to that council to arrange its road constructon programme and priorities. The principal scheme it has in hand in west London is the Hayes bypass, from just north of the M4 northward to the "White Hart" junction on the Ruislip road in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. Greenway: We do not want it.

Mr. MacGregor: I understand that that scheme is priced at about £60 million. I heard what my hon. Friend said about it. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is prepared to consider funding under the transport supplementary grant arrangements. No doubt my hon. Friend will take up the matter with him. I believe that this is the full extent of GLC major road schemes to improve north-south links—except, perhaps, for the Roxborough bridge in Harrow at the junction of the A404 and the A312.
On the question about who should be responsible for roads in London, the Select Committee on Transport has analysed a number of weaknesses in the present organisation of transport responsibilities in London and has made some far-reaching recommendations as to how they might be tackled. The Government are carefully considering these recommendations, and a response will be published as soon as possible.
On public transport, the Government, too, would like to see closer integration between London Transport and British Rail in those places where there are now clearly gross anomalies, ans we are encouraging both operators to examine the scope for further progress in this area.
In conclusion, the area of west London—as my hon. Friend pointed out clearly; he described many of the advantages which I am sure will attract businesses to the area—is an area of industrial and commercial potential which will certainly benefit from the economic recovery when it comes. I have been most impressed with the positive approach of developers, industrialists and the borough councils in this area. I hope that my hon. Friend

will agree that the Government are making an important contribution to west London's regeneration by helping to remove many of the constraints mentioned by my hon. Friend this evening—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at eight minutes past Two o'clock.